!l 



iliy)IllillliimliilillNlm| 



imimiiinmtiuj 



m 

III itiitmit 




lli;:i; 



liiiiii' 



iiiiHliiiiiiiiiii- 



iiiiiiniiiii 




liulliiiililii; 




Class _BV.l_a 



Book._^,„^_/y\_Ll 
Copyright]^" 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE 



FUNDAMENTAL ERROR 
OF CHRISTENDOM 



W. T. MOORE 



TldvTa SoKifxaL^CTC to KaXov KaTe^ere.— 1 thess. v, 21. 



« • • * • « 

• • • • 4 




• • •• ••• • • 

» 1 1 ' t t > 1 


• • 
* 


:'\]" 


J 3 O 

5 J 




«" 
•o 


St. 


Louis 






CHRISTIAN PUBIylSHING COMPANY 





THE LIBRARY OF 
CONGRESS, 

Two C<_'0«t-e5 RE.C»r:ivCC: 

OCT. 2? IPO? 

OLASS (> VXr Mo. 
COPY R. 



:s 



^J2^\ 




Copyright, 1902, by 
CHRISTIAN PUBIylSHING COMPANY. 



PREFACE. 



A PART of the matter in this volume ap- 
peared in the Christian Quarterly while I was 
the editor of that periodical. I have frequently 
been urged to put this matter into convenient 
and permanent form so that it might be availa- 
ble for popular use. In endeavoring to do this 
I found it necessary to add much that is new, 
and also to revise and re-arrange what had 
already been written; so that the whole argu- 
ment, as now presented, may be regarded as 
practically a fresh and reasonably exhaustive 
statement of the case. Of course much more 
might be said on particular points; but fullness 
in detail has been sacrificed in the interest of 
brevity, which, in these days of high living 
and low thinking is of the utmost importance. 

It is believed that the argument, in many 
respects, is somewhat unique, and that it really 
presents, in a small compass, a satisfactory 
solution of the baptismal question. This has 
been the chief aim in every sentence that has 
been written. The subject discussed is evi- 



preface; 

dently not understood by tlie people generally, 
and even some theologians do not seem to have 
a clear conception of much that is involved. I 
have been especially impressed with the uncer- 
tainty that reigns within the region of the bap- 
tismal controversy since I began work in the 
Bible College of Missouri^ where I have come 
in contact with a large number of earnest 
young men who are seeking more light with 
respect to the teaching of the Bible on Baptism 
and other kindred questions. I have been 
made to feel that some such w^ork as is now 
given to the public is greatly needed, and, 
consequently, I have been impelled to the task 
of making a contribution to a better under- 
standing of the whole subject. It is hoped, 
therefore, that this volume will be not alto- 
gether unfruitful in throwing light upon the 
dark places, and in bringing order out of con- 
fusion. 

No attempt has been made to rely upon 
human authority; nevertheless, a few impor- 
tant testimonies have been introduced, and 
these from writers, for the most part, not usu- 
ally quoted in discussions with respect to bap- 
tism. The quotations made are chiefly from 
modern writers, and are all the more valuable 



PRBFACB ^ 

on that account, because they give us the last 
word that has been said from the Pedobaptist 
point of view, as nearly all the quotations are 
from Pedobaptist advocates. 

This fact suggests a curious state of things. 
Is it not remarkable that the advocates of 
infant sprinkling are compelled to make such 
admissions as have been quoted in this vol- 
ume? Surely no cause can hope to stand 
when its advocates are forced to concede so 
much that is directly against it. 

No apology need be offered for discussing the 
baptismal question at this time. Baptism has 
always- been a prominent factor in the Chris- 
tian religion. It has lost nothing of its primi- 
tive importance. Nor is it likely to diminish 
in importance in the future. I^ike Banquo's 
ghost, it will not down. Why should it? Is 
not the command to baptize the nations clearly 
indicated in the great commission which Christ 
gave to his apostles? Did not these apostles 
administer baptism to all their converts during 
all the days Of the early Church? Do not the 
letters of the apostles abundantly show that 
baptism in some way was intimately connected 
with allegiance to Christ and initiation into the 
Church? Indeed, it might be asked, is not the 



PRBFACB 

whole history of Christianity, from its begin- 
ning clown to the present time, deeply tinged 
with the baptismal coloring, no matter from 
what point of view the qnestion may be consid- 
ered? 

It is not strange, therefore, that the question 
of baptism should still have an abiding interest 
for those who reverence the teaching of the 
Scriptures and the unbroken testimony of the 
Christian Church since its foundation. It is, 
however, of the very first importance that bap- 
tism should be assigned its proper place, and 
not perverted to uses for which there is no 
authority in either reason or revelation. It has 
been my purpose, therefore, in what follows to 
seek to find just what the correct position of 
baptism is; but while doing this, it has been 
necessary, first of all, to consider the rise and 
progress of one of the most fatal errors which 
have ever found their way into the sphere of 
religious faith. I refer to the doctrine of Bap- 
tismal Regeneration. 

The position which has seemed to me to be 
the most reasonable is that which lies between 
the two extremes of Baptismal Regeneration 
and a baptism which practically amounts to 
nothing. In stating and defending this view 



pre:fack 

of the matter, the appeal has been made to the 
Bible and common sense; and while the conclu- 
sion reached will probably not please the ex- 
tremes of any school, it is hoped that reasona- 
ble people will be convinced that the position 
which I have indicated is the only safe one to 
occupy. Believing, as I do, that the baptis- 
mal question must be settled before Christian 
union is possible, and believing, furthermore, 
that Christian union must be realized before 
the conversion of the world can ever be assured, 
it is easy to understand how deeply concerned 
I must be with respect to an irenicon on the 
baptismal question. In the following pages I 
have endeavored to deal with the question 
broadly and charitably, but, at the same time, 
I have not hesitated to call a spade a spade. 
June /, 1^02, W. T. M. 



.r 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

PRBFACK 3 

CHAPTER I. 
Different Views of Regeneration ... 13 

Meaiiing of the term Reg-eneration — An appeal to the Script- 
ures — Meaning in Matthew and in Titus— Westminster Con- 
fession definition — The doctrine of original sin — Hillary and 
Ambrose — Teaching of lyUtheran symbols — Dr. Hodge's view — 
Diversity of views as regards Baptismal Regeneration — Roman 
Catholic view — High Church party — View of Nonconformists — 
Nineteen-twentieths of Christendom hold to Baptismal Regen- 
eration in some form — Origin of the heres}' — The trinity of 
evil. 

CHAPTER II. 
Origin of Infant Baptism 29 

Mr. Spurgeon's sa5nng — Teaching of Irenseus — Neander's state- 
ment — Dr. Newman's account of the origin — Augustine's 
view — John Wesley in doctrinal tracts — The true origin of 
infant baptism is to be found in Baptismal Regeneration. 

CHAPTER III. 
Dean Stani^ey on Baptism . . . . . 36 

The family idea — A fatal admission — Immersion the almost uni- 
versal practice till the twentieth century — The civilized world 
has decided against it — "The general sentiment of Christian 
liberty" has triumphed— The change from immersion to 
sprinkling greater than administering the I,ord's Supper with 
the bread without the wine — Summary of the dean's view — 
What he says about the practice of infant baptism — Does not 
claim for it apostolic authority — Founds it in the famil3' rela- 
tion — Three reasons for its origin — Henry Ward Beecher on 
infant baptism — Do Protestants honor the Word of God? — The 
modern theory — A trilemma — Martin I^uther's view. 

9 



conte:nts 

CHAPTER IV. 

PAGE 

Reasons Against Infant Baptism .... 55 

It is unscriptural — Views of distinguished Pedobaptists— Dr. 
Joseph Agar Beet — Dr. Augustus Ncauder — An apostolic tra- 
dition in the third century — Did not originate with Christ — Dr. 
William Cunningham says the general tenor of Scripture lan- 
guage applies to adults — The practice unreasonable — We 
should not needlessly antagonize the scientific spirit of the 
age — Prof. Harnack on mysteries and charms — The mystery of 
the sacraments by Dr.Martensen — Close relation between bap- 
tism and lyOrd's Supper — The church of North Africa first 
brought prominently into notice infant baptism — Infant com- 
munion — An irenicon proposed by Dr. Van Oosterzee — Infant 
baptism unnecessary — Infants do not need it — Parents still 
fear their children will be lost — Children respect the action of 
their parents — The practice perpetuated by love of parents for 
children and love of children for parents — Still rests on the 
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. 

CHAPTKR V. 
Summing Up the; Case 71 

Infant Baptism an inheritance — The only thing that can over- 
throw is Christ's authority — The effects of the practice — Seven 
evils — Must be surrendered — Tradition must not be allowed to 
take place of Scripture — A canon of Christianity necessary — 
The Apostolic Church the original form of Christian life — 
Reformers did not reform sufficiently — Tradition must be 
abandoned. 

CHAPTER VI. 
Sackrdotawsm 85 

A child of Baptismal Regeneration — A departure of the Church of 
the second and third centuries not confined to infant bap- 
tism — Testimony of Dr. Henry Newman and Principal Fair- 
bairn — How related to Apostolic succession — "Spiritual Kx- 
cisemen" — The remedy — Summary of evils of sacerdotalism — A 
more excellent way — Church government in primitive church 
simple — Service, not rule, the characteristic of Christian 
honor — Christianity's prime solicitude not knowledge, but 
worship. 

10 



CONTENTS 
CHAPTER VII. 

PAGE 

The Reaction from Baptismai, Regeneration . 99 

John iii. 5 relied upon to teach Baptismal Regeneration — Meaning 
of the passage — Baptism in Spirit does not exclude baptism 
in water— The two elements united in the "One baptism" of 
Paul— INIeaning of the "Kingdom of God"— Three things 
apparent— Christ baptizes in Holy Spirit; baptism in water 
administered by John; no such thing as "Spirit baptism," or 
"water baptism" — I,anguage of Ashdod — Peter at Pentecost in 
harmony with John iii. 5 — Baptism in Holy Spirit probably 
belongs to every baptism — Scriptural teaching harmonious. 

CHAPTER VIII. 
A Reasonabi^e View of Baptism .... Ill 

Ritual holds important place in the Divine government — Difficulty 
of making a perfect revelation — Antiquity of ritual — Abuse no 
good reason against use — Easily perverted — The old distinc- 
tion between moral and positive duties cannot be maintained — 
God does not command what is not right in itself — The old 
notion fosters a false notion of baptism — Baptism not simply 
a test of faith — Reasonable and appropriate — Therefore not 
contrary to reason — This view will help to overthrow infant 
baptism — Making too little of baptism — Extremes beget ex- 
tremes — Baptism saves in some sense — Safety in the middle 
course. 

CHAPTER IX. 
How TO S01.VE THE Question 130 

Three ways in which to solve the question — Baptism as a cove- 
nant, as a decision, or as simply a command to be obeyed — The 
way to Christian union — No need for hair-splitting — Summing 
up the case — Seven evil consequences resulting from indiffer- 
entism — Danger of being misunderstood — Making too little of 
baptism as dangerous as making too much of it — The right 
view makes Baptismal Regeneration impossible. 

CHAPTER X. 

Modern Testimonies Concerning the Impor- 
tance OF Baptism 138 

Many theologians who reject Baptismal Regeneration connect 

11 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

baptism with salvation — Alexander Campbell's position — Bap- 
tism without faith is of no value — Dr. Beet's view — New Testa- 
ment cases considered — Rev. F. W. Robertson's testimony — 
Baptism somethinja^ to rest upon — The marriage ceremony — 
The coronation of a sovereign — Authoritativeness is the all in 
all of baptism. 

CHAPTER XI.. 
What Saith thk vScripturks? 149 

Scriptures say much about baptism — In some sense a saving ordi- 
nance — Did Paul baptize? — Were the Gentile Christians bap- 
tized? — Arguments in the case — The apostles went out in twos. 

CHAPTER XII. 
Thrke Important Facts 158 

I.Peter iii. 21, examined critically, exegetically and practicallj' — 
The Scriptural significance of baptism — Baptism a transitional 
act — Who are children of God? — What is meant by Father- 
hood — vSonship is ethical and cannot, therefore, be universal — 
John i. 11, 12 — We do not become what we already are — Man is 
the creature of God — Must not confine our investigation to the 
family idea, our new state set forth under various figures — 
Baptism is in the name of Jesus — The name the power — The 
phrase, "Remission of sins," considered — Acts ii. 38 and Acts 
X. 43 harmonized — "Upon the name" emphasizes the name 
rather than the baptism — Baptism the ke3-stone — Joined to 
twelve other things — Does not stand for simply one thing — The 
popular mistake — Salvation ascribed to several things — Divine 
and human side — Scriptures harmonized — Must not rest too 
— f^h in definition — I^oyalty to Christ the main matter. 



12 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF 
CHRISTENDOM. 



CHAPTER I. 
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION. 

As the proposition to be proved in this vol- 
ume is that Baptismal Regeneration is the 
Fundamental Error of Christendom, it is impor- 
tant at the beginning of the discussion to in- 
quire: What is the meaning of the term Regen- 
eratio7i? Correct definition is the sword which 
often cuts the Gordian knot of theology. Our 
controversies are not infrequently little more 
than logomachies. We quarrel about words, 
and generally for the reason that we attach dif- 
ferent meanings to them. Consequently, in 
order to unity with respect to almost anything, 
the first great need of our time is to agree as to 
the meaning of the terms which we use. This 
is especially true of theological terms. In 
these days we hear much said against the dis- 
tracting influence of theology, and there is cer- 
tainly good ground for what we hear. Doubt- 
less there is considerable reason for the growing 
tendency to regard scholastic speculations as of 

13 



THE FUNDAMENTAIy ERROR OK CHRISTENDOM 

no particular value in the affairs of life. But, 
after all, it is more than probable that the 
greatest evil of theology comes from a failure 
of the schools to agree upon a terminology 
which every one may understand. At present 
theological terms are used with so much differ- 
ence in their meaning that it is next to impos- 
sible to thread our way through the labyrinths 
of definition to anything like a common under- 
standing, in which all Christians may practically 
agree. 

Let us appeal to the Scriptures for help with 
respect to a clear definition of Regeneration. It 
is interesting to note the fact that this word 
occurs only twice in the New Testament. First 
in Matt. 19:28: "Ye who have followed me, in 
the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit 
on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon 
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." 

The second occurrerice is in Tit. 3:5: "Ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us by the wash- 
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
Ghost." 

Now, it is probable that in both of these in- 
stances the reference is to a new state or king- 
dom; for what Matthew calls the "Regenera- 
tion," lyuke calls a "Kingdom" (Luke 28:30). 
The idea seems to be that Jesus is looking for- 

14 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

ward to the establishment of his kingdom when 
the apostles will become his administrators on ' 
earth, and whatsoever they bind on earth shall 
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

This public administration of Christ's king- 
dom began on the day of Pentecost, at which 
time the law of admission into the kingdom 
was clearly announced, and at the same time 
about three thousand souls were added to the 
company of believers. 

The meaning in Titus is not necessarily dif- 
ferent from what it is in Matthew. If we sub- 
stitute the word "Kingdom" for "Regenera- 
tion," we shall then have "the washing of the 
Kingdom"; and as this phrase implies that the 
"washing" is something which belongs to the 
Kingdom, we may reasonably infer that when 
the phrase is stripped of all metaphor it simply 
means the Baptism of the new Institution, or 
the Kingdom which was set up on the day of 
Pentecost. 

. This, doubtless, is the truly scriptural mean- 
ing of the Or^ok. palijtgejtesia. There is, how- 
ever, another term which has been thought to 
be equivalent to palingenesia. That term is 
anagennasas^ from aiiagennao^ "to beget or 
bring forth again. Regenerate," etc. How- 
ever, it is by no means certain that anagennasas 

15 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR 01^' CHRISTENDOM 

is equivalent \.o palingejiesia ; and the confound- 
ing of these two words may partially account 
for the confusion which has prevailed in theo- 
logical controversy with respect to the whole 
subject of Regeneration. In any case, it is evi- 
dent that the confusion has been widespread, 
and even at present there is no well defined, ac- 
ceptable view as to the real meaning of Regen- 
eration. However, it is probable that the 
definition of the Westminster Confession of 
Faith is the one which is most generally ac- 
cepted by theologians, although it is not certain 
that what the Confession says is clearly under- 
stood by any one. Undoubtedly the popular 
use of Regeneration implies the implantation of 
a new nature; a change by which holy affec- 
tions and purposes are substituted for the oppo- 
site motives in the heart; and it is in this sense 
that the term will be used in what follows, al- 
though it is probable that this does not express 
the true scriptural idea. Nevertheless, as we 
are dealing with a popular error, we must ac- 
cept the popular interpretation of terms. 

However, as an illustration of the confusion 
which has been produced by the want of a 
uniform, clearly defined terminology, it is only 
necessary to call attention to the bitter contro- 
versies which have been waged with respect to 
the doctrine of Regeneration. It is not my 

16 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

purpose at present to even attempt to consider 
the numerous phases of the discussions concern- 
ing the meaning of this term. A volume might 
be written upon this single word, and even then 
the subject would not be exhausted. Indeed, it 
is not at all improbable that the true scriptural 
meaning of the word has not been clearly set 
forth in any of the theological works which are 
usually accepted as standards. Still, it will an- 
swer the present purpose, if the reader can be 
made to clearly understand the difference be- 
tween what is popularly called the evangelical 
doctrine of Regeneration and what has been 
known in Church history as Baptismal Regen- 
eration. In its proper place we may have some- 
thing to say as regards a reconstruction of 
terminology on this whole question. 

THE DOCTRINE OK ORIGINAL SIN. 

Early in the history of the Christian Church 
the doctrine of Original Sin came prominently 
into view. The influence of this doctrine was 
soon felt upon the controversy in reference to 
Baptismal Regeneration. However, the doc- 
trine as it is now understood did not find very 
general acceptance until the third century^ 
when such writers as Tertullian, Cyprian and 
others soon reduced it to a distinct formula. 
In reference to Original Sin, St. Cyprian says: 

2 17 



THK FUNDAMENTAI, i^RROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

**The infant has committed no sin. He has 
only contracted the contagion of death from his 
progenitor, and hence remission of sin is more 
easy in his case, because it is not his own, but 
another's sin, that is remitted to him." 

Hillary and Ambrose, the two most distin- 
guished I^atin theologians of the fourth century, 
emphasize the doctrine of a sinful as distin- 
guished from a corrupt nature still more dis- 
tinctly than either TertuUian or Cyprian did. 

The following quotations from Ambrose will 
indicate his general view of Original Sin and of 
the Adamic connection: ^'Adam existed (fuit), 
and we all existed in him; Adam perished, and 
all perished in him." *'We all sinned in the 
first man, and by the succession of nature the 
succession of guilt (culpse) was transferred from 
one to all." *' Before we are born we are stained 
with contagion, and before we see the light we 
receive the injury of the original transgres- 
sion." " *In whom all sinned.' Thus it is evi- 
dent that all sinned in Adam, as if in a mass; 
for having corrupted by sin those whom he be- 
gat, all are born under sin. Wherefore we all 
are sinners from him (ex eo), because we are 
all from him." 

In these statements we have the germ of the 
Augustinian Anthropology, which became domi- 
nant about the beginning of the fifth century; 

18 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

while this anthropology was afterwards restated 
and enforced by the remarkable logical powers 
of John Calvin, whose views have distinctly 
marked and influenced almost every feature of 
Protestantism in all its various forms. 

The lyUtheran symbols very generally in- 
clude conversion in the doctrine of Regenera- 
tion, while the Westminster Confession of 
Faith and the Larger Catechism emphasize the 
fact that regeneration is wholly a divine act. 
Dr. Hodge is perhaps the ablest exponent of 
this special view of regeneration. In his Sys- 
teinatic Theology he says: *' Regeneration is an 
act of God. It is not simply referred to him as 
its Giver, and, in that sense, its Author, as he 
is the Giver of faith and of repentance. It is 
not aii act which, by argument and persua- 
sion, or by moral power, he induces the sinner 
to perform. But it is an act of which he is the 
Agent. It is God who regenerates. The soul 
is regenerated. In this sense the soul is pas- 
sive in regeneration, which (subjectively con- 
sidered) is a change wrought in us, and not an 
act performed by us." But Dr. Hodge goes 
still further than this. He says that *' Regener- 
ation is not only an act of God, but also an act 
of his almighty power. Raising Lazarus from 
the dead was an act of omnipotence. Nothing 
intervened between the volition and the effect. 

19 



the: fundam]];ntaiv error of Christendom 

The act of quickening was the act of God. In 
that matter L<azarus was passive. But in all 
the acts of restored vitality he was active and 
free. According to the evangelical system, it 
is in this sense that regeneration is the act of 
God's almighty power." This is practically a 
re-statement of Augustinianism, or its modern 
representative, Calvinism; but it constitutes 
the warp and woof of what is to-day, for the 
most part, the acknowledged teaching of evan- 
gelicals concerning regeneration. 

BAPTISM AI, REGENERATION. 

As regards the doctrine of Baptismal Regen- 
eration, there is a wide diversity of view.s. 
Kven Church of England writers differ very 
greatly as to what is meant by the doctrine. It 
is well known that the High Church, or Ritu- 
alistic wing of the Establishment, holds prac- 
tically the view of the Church of Rome* in its 
leading characteristics. Many, therefore, ac- 
cept the definition of regeneration as given by 
the Council of Trent; and that Council declared 
that "baptism takes away not only guilt, but 
everything of the nature of sin, and communi- 
cates a new life." Indeed, that Council de- 
clared baptism to be "the sacrament of faith, 
without which no one could be justified," or 
regenerated. Hence, the doctrine of the 

20 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

Roman Catholic Cliiircli is that regeneration 
inchides (i) the removal of the guilt of sin; 
(2) the cleansing away of inherent moral cor- 
ruption; (3) the infusion of new habits of 
grace, and (4) adoption, or recognition of the 
renewed as sons of God. Now when we 
remember that the Council of Trent taught 
that this regeneration is effected by baptism, it 
is easy to see to what dangerous extremes the 
doctrine of baptism has been pressed, and con- 
sequently how very earnest our protest should 
be against that wing of the Established Church 
which so persistently contends for what is prac- 
tically nothing better than Roman Catholicism. 
Nevertheless, the High Church Party, or the 
Tractarian, as they are called, have almost out- 
Heroded Herod in their plea for * 'sacramental 
grace," and especially for Baptismal Regenera- 
tion. That this is not over-stating the case, 
the following extracts from J. H. Newman's 
Lectures on Jitstification abundantly prove: 
**The sacraments," he says, *'are the imme- 
diate, faith is the secondary, subordinate, or 
representative instrument of justification." 
* 'Faith, being the appointed representative of 
baptism, derives its authority and virtue from 
that w^hich it represents. It is justifying be- 
cause of baptism; it is the faith of the baptized, 

of the regenerate; that is, of the justified. Jus- 

21 



the; fundame:ntaIv krror of Christendom 

tifying faith does not jDrecede justification; but 
justification precedes faith, and makes it justi- 
fying. And here lies the cardinal mistake of 
the views on the subject which are now es- 
teemed evangelical. They make faith the sole 
instrument, not after baptism, but before, 
whereas baptism is the primary instrument, 
and makes faith to be what it is, and otherwise 
is not." 

This extract expresses with clearness the 
view generally held by that portion of the 
Church of England known as the High Church 
Party. Dr. Newman wrote this several years 
before he joined the Roman Catholic Church. 
The essential idea of this Popish and Tractarian 
doctrine of the sacraments is, in the language 
of Dr. Cunningham, ''that God has established 
an invariable connection between external ordi- 
nances and the communication of himself — 
the possession by men of spiritual blessing, 
pardon and holiness; with this further notion, 
which naturally results from it, that he has en- 
dowed these outward ordinances v/ith some sort 
of power or capacity of conveying or conferring 
the blessing with which they are respectively 
connected. It is a necessary result of this prin- 
ciple, that the want of the outward ordinance — 
not the neglect or contempt of it, but the mere 
want of it, from whatever cause arising — de- 

22 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

prives men of the spiritual blessings which it is 
said to confer.'* 

Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, England, in his 
Church Dictionary ^ distinguishes between con- 
version and regeneration; but, after all, he 
teaches simply a modified form of the Roman 
Catholic doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. 
Other Churchmen hold that regeneration ex- 
presses an external change of relation, and not 
an internal change of the state of the soul, in 
its relation to God. Regeneration, in this out- 
ward sense, is declared to be by baptism, while 
the inner change is wrought by the Holy Spirit. 
There are also, as is well known, not a few 
Churchmen who hold to what has been stated 
to be the evangelical view. 

Associated with these may be reckoned most 
of the Nonconformist bodies. It is true that 
some of these, being Arminians in their theol- 
ogy, differ somewhat from Dr. Hodge and 
others who are Calvinists. At the same time a 
large majority of Dissenters utterly reject the 
doctrine of the Church of Rome that baptism 
has the effect of ''imprinting a character upon 
the soul that is supernatural and spiritual"; 
and that, furthermore, it ''carries along with it 
such a divine virtue that by the very receiving 
of it the virtue is conveyed to the souls of them 

to whom it is applied." In other words, Non- 
23 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

conformists, for the most part, utterly reject the 
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, as that 
doctrine is popularly known in Church history. 
But this protest is feeble compared with the 
widespread influence of the error under consid- 
eration. A large majority of Christendom un- 
questionably hold to some form of Baptismal 
Regeneration. We have already seen that it is 
a cardinal doctrine of the Roman Catholic 
Church. It is also equally fundamental in the 
Greek Church, while the Established Protestant 
Churches of Continental Europe may generally 
be ranked in this respect with the Latins and 
the Greeks. And when we add to these a ma- 
jority of the Anglican Church, with scattering 
Nonconformists to be found in all their com- 
munions, it will at once be seen that not less 
than nineteen- twentieths of the whole of Chris- 
tendom are to-day teaching and practicing the 
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. This is 
surely an appalling fact; and it is a fact, too, 
which must be earnestly reckoned with in any 
honest consideration of the elements which 
enter into the religious progress of the world. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE HERESY. 

And yet it is not very difficult to see how this 
heresy had its origin. Whoever has read care- 
fully the New Testament, with the view of 

24 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

studying the relation between baptism and the 
sinner, will scarcely have failed to notice how 
intimate this relation is. In such passages as 
the following there can be no mistake about the 
connection between baptism and the remission 
of sins: "He that belie veth and is baptized 
shall be saved," i. e.^ pardoned; "Repent and 
be baptized every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit;" 
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the I^ord;" "The 
like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us," etc., etc. We could extend the 
list of similar passages very much further, but 
we have quoted sufficient to show how easily, in 
the first place, the Patristic writers, and, in the 
second place, even the writers of modern times, 
evolved the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- 
tion. By losing sight of the proper antece- 
dents of baptism, viz,^ faith and repentance, 
and by fixing attention mainly upon the ordi- 
nance which marked the consummation of the 
sinner's return to God, it was not a difficult 
thing to reach the conclusion that baptism it- 
self, ex opere operato^ effected a change of 
heart, or a change from the love of sin to the 
love of holiness; or, in other words, produced 
what is now regarded by evangelicals as Regen- 

25 



the; fundambntaIv error of Christendom 

eration; and, furthermore, it can scarcely be 
doubted that there is ample reason for regard- 
ing what was evolved in this great transforma- 
tion as a most pernicious evil. 

THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY. 

It is well known that at a very early period 
in the history of Christianity, Baptism and Re- 
generation were used as equivalent terms. Bap- 
tism was also called i7idulgentia^ or indulgence, 
or absolution. By some writers it was called 
sahis^ salvation, because it was. alleged to be 
*^the means not only of obtaining remission 
of sins, but of bringing men by the grace and 
blood of Christ to the glory of the kingdom of 
heaven." And, finally, it was called a **sacra- 
ment," the *'seal of the Lord," *'the royal 
mark of character," the ''character of the 
Lord." In all of which names and phrases 
there is a distinct recognition of a Divine con- 
nection between baptism and the remission of 
sins. It would be easy enough to give numer- 
ous quotations from the most distinguished 
writers of all ages of the Church in support of 
the statements here made, but as these state- 
ments are not likely to be disputed by any one 
whose judgment is worth considering, it is not 
deemed necessary to burden these pages with 
such quotations. Suffice it to say that, from Bar- 

26 



DIFFERENT VIEWS OF REGENERATION 

nabas down to the Council of Nice, and from 
Nice to Augsburg, nearly all the Christian writ- 
ers agree in describing a most intimate relation- 
ship between baptism and remission of sins. 
Indeed, it is quite true, as Hagenbach has said, 
that "from the earliest times great importance 
was attached to the doctrine of Baptism, be- 
cause of its supposed relation to the forgiveness 
of vsins." We have already seen that this no- 
tion was founded upon certain Scripture texts, 
and that by carrying the notion too far the doc- 
trine of Baptismal Regeneration was evolved. 
And in view of the widespread and baneful in- 
fluence of that doctrine, we are quite justified in 
calling it the Fundamental Error of Christen- 
dom. 

And now, in order to understand some of the 
disastrous consequences of Baptismal Regener- 
ation, it may be well to notice a few of the great 
evils which have grown out of it. At present 
only three of these will be noticed specifically, 
though these will be quite sufficient, as nearly 
all the evils of Christendom are in some way 
associated with Sacramentarianism^ Sacerdotal- 
ism and hidifferentism. These three '4sms," 
from a religious point of view, can be regarded 
as constituting what may be not inappropriately 
called the Trinity of Evil. Hence, Infant 
Baptisin^ Priestcraft and Indifference to Divine 

27 



THK FUNDAMKNTAIy KRROR OF CHRISTONDOM 

Authority properly belong to that hydra-headed 
monster known in Church history as the Great 
Apostasy, and which has so long committed 
such fearful ravages throughout the religious 
world. 



28 



CHAPTER II. 
ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

Mr. Spurgeon once said that Baptismal Re- 
generation rode in on the shoulders of Infant 
Baptism, but it is evident from the facts of his- 
tory that this statement is not correct. Indeed, 
it would be exactly true if Infant Baptism and 
Baptismal Regeneration were made to change 
places. It is simply certain that Infant Bap- 
tism rode in on the shoulders of Baptismal Re- 
generation. We have already seen how soon, 
in the history of the Christian religion, this 
doctrine was evolved. And when it is stated 
that the early writers nearly always connected 
baptism with the remission of what is known 
in theology as original sin, as well as personal 
sins, it is not difficult to see how Infant Baptism 
finally became a logical necessity. The first 
Christian writer who distinctly advocated Infant 
Baptism was Irenaeus, and he testifies of the 
profound Christian idea out of which Infant 
Baptism arose. The idea is that "Christ came 
to redeem all by Himself — all who, through 
Him, are regenerated to God — infants, little 
children, boys, young men and old. Hence He 
passed through every age, and for infants He 

29 



THE FUNDAMENTAI, ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

became an Infant, sanctifying the infants; 
among the children He became a little Child, 
sanctifying those who belong to this age, and at 
the same time presenting to them an example of 
piety, of well-doing and of obedience." Com- 
menting upon this statement of Irenseus, the 
great historian, Augustus Neander, says: *' In- 
fant Baptism, then, appears here as the medium 
through which the principle of sanctification, 
imparted by Christ to human nature from its 
earliest development, became appropriated to 
children. From this idea, founded on what is 
innermost in Christianity, becoming prominent 
in the feelings of Christians, resulted the prac- 
tice of Infant Baptism." 

But even this view did not make Infant Bap- 
tism absolutely necessary. It may have sug- 
gested its appropriateness, but Infant Baptism 
never would have become so general a practice 
had it not been that the family idea was imme- 
diately associated with original sin; and hence, 
in commenting upon the final outcome of the 
matter, Neander uses the following suggestive 
and emphatic language: ^'But when now, on 
the one hand, the doctrine of the corruption 
and guilt, cleaving to human nature in conse- 
quence of the first transgression, was reduced 
to a more precise and systematic form, and, on 
the other, from the want of duly distinguishing 

30 



ORIGIN 01^ INFANT BAPTISM 

between what is outward and what is inward in 
baptism (the Baptism by water, and the Bap- 
tism by the Spirit), the error became more 
firmly established, that without external bap- 
tisjn no one could be delivered from that inher- 
ent guilty could be saved from the everlasting 
punishment that threatened him^ or raised to 
eternal life ; and when the notion of a magical 
influence^ a charm connected with the sacra- 
ments^ continually gained groujid^ the theory was 
finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of 
Infant Baptism. ' ' 

In confirmation of this view of the matter it 
may be well to quote from a recent very able 
work entitled, *'A History of Anti-Pedobap- 
tism," by Dr. Albert Henry Newman, Professor 
of Church History in McMaster University, To- 
ronto, Canada. After stating the fact that ^ 'early 
in the second century, possibly during the last 
decade of the first, the idea came into vogue 
that while instruction on Christian truth and 
morals, repentance, faith, fasting and prayer 
must precede baptism, the remission of sins 
takes place only in connection with the bap- 
tismal act," Dr. Newman goes on to say: 

*'It is highly probable that the disposition to attach 
magical significance to baptism, and to surround its ad- 
ministration with mystery and ceremonial, came into the 
Church through the channel of Gnosticism; although, as 
is well known, Gnostic mysteries were themselves derived 

31 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

from those that had long prevailed in pagan systems. We 
need only mention the elaborate initiatory rites of the 
Eleusinian, Pythagorean, Orphic and Delphian mysteries, 
of the old Egyptian priesthood, and of the Mithras wor- 
ship. The fact is, there was a great fund of current 
thought and practice on this matter that was sure, sooner 
or later, to make its influence profoundly felt by Chris- 
tianity. 

**Side by side with the idea of the efficacy of water bap- 
tism had grown up the conviction that apart from baptism 
there is no salvation. The human race being intrinsically 
corrupt, the guilt of race-sin attaches to unconscious in- 
fants no less than to such as have reached moral conscious- 
ness. The only avenue of escape was baptism. Excep- 
tion was made in the case of believers who suffered martyr- 
dom before they had had an opportunity to wash away their 
sins in baptism; but these were said to have had a baptism 
of blood. 

"When Christians had come to believe that water bap- 
tism possessed magical efficacy, and that all mankind was 
so involved in sin that no salvation was possible apart from 
baptism, it was inevitable that infant baptism should be 
introduced. The widespread prevalence of infant lustra- 
tions among pagans made the introduction of infant bap- 
tism easy and natural. At first it would be confined to in- 
fants in danger of death; but when the idea had taken 
firm hold on the Christian consciousness that it was a nec- 
essary means of securing cleansing from hereditary sin, 
its progress could not fail to be rapid. 

"The universal prevalence of infant baptism was long 
prevented, however, by another error, for whose elevation 
to the position of a dogma Tertullian was chiefly respon- 
sible, but which no doubt had been more or less current 
since the middle of the second century. This error was, 
in effect, that mortal sins committed after baptism are irre- 

32 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM 

missible. It was chiefly on this ground that Tertullian so 
earnestly insisted on the postponement of baptism until 
such a degree of maturity and stability should have been 
reached as to warrant the expectation that the candidate 
would be able to guard himself from the commission of 
mortal sins. He had no doubt as to the efficacy of bap- 
tism to cleanse the unconscious infant of hereditary sin; but, 
on prudential grounds, he considered it important that 
this cleansing rite should be reserved until such time as he 
could have reasonable assurance that its efficacy would 
be permanent. From this time onward the choice between 
infant baptism and adult baptism was determined largely 
by the views of individuals as to whether the former or the 
latter would probably be the more advantageous. The 
baptized infant might, on the one hand, grow up and be- 
come involved in sin, and so lose the opportunity that 
adult baptism would confer of starting out on his personal 
Christian life with a clean score; on the other hand, the 
unbaptized infant might die by violence, or so unexpect- 
edly as to be out of reach of the saving bath. The rigor- 
ous view of Tertullian as regards the unpardonableness of 
post-baptismal mortal sin gradually gave place to a more 
benignant view, and from the middle of the third century 
the Church made so ample provision for the restoration of 
the lapsed that infant baptism came to be generally re- 
garded as the safer thing." 

Here, then, we have unmistakably indicated 
the real origin of a practice which at one time 
became well-nigh universal, and is yet retained 
in all the Churches which still believe in Bap- 
tismal Regeneration, and also in a few which 
hold to the notion that was first propounded by 
Irenseus. But it is simply certain that infant 
baptism cannot be justified on any other ground 

3 33 



THE FUNDAMBNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

than that of Baptismal Regeneration. This is 
the ground on which the early Church placed 
it, and it is the only ground on which it can 
find any real justification. If, however, it is 
true, as Augustine has alleged, that "he who is 
not baptized cannot obtain salvation"; that 
"everyone is born in sin, and stands, therefore, 
in need of pardon"; and that he "obtains this 
pardon by baptism," and that "it cleanses 
children from original sin," then it is easy to 
see that infant baptism is not only logical, but is 
a prime necessity, and ought to be universally 
adopted by the whole of Christendom. It is 
not strange, therefore, that some Protestant 
writers, even since the Lutheran Reformation, 
have practically held the same view as that 
maintained by the early Church and such theo- 
logians as St. Augustine. It is rather remark- 
able, however, that John Wesley, in his Doc- 
trinal Tracts^ should use such language as the 
following: 

"By baptism, we who were 'by nature children of wrath,' 
are made the chii^dre^n of God. And this regeneration 
which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is 
more than barely being admitted into the Church, though 
commonly connected therewith; being 'grafted into the 
body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God 
by adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the plain 
words of our Lord, 'Except a man be born again of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 

34 



ORIGIN OF INFANT BAPTISM 

God' (John 3:5). Jg^^ By water, then, as a means, the water 
of baptism, we are regexicrated or born again; '^^g 
where it is also called by the apostle, 'the washing of 
regeneration.' Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater 
virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. Nor does 
she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward 
grace which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein 
a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly 
taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by 
long continued mckedness." — Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 248, 
249. 

These tracts of Wesley were circulated by 
tlie Methodist Episcopal Church of the United 
States up to the year i860, when that Church 
refused any longer to publish and indorse them 
as evangelical. 



35 



CHAPTER III. 
DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM. 

No DOUBT the family idea has had much to 
do with maintaining the practice of infant bap- 
tism even with those who do not associate it 
with the doctrine of Original Sin, or believe 
that baptism is ever connected with remission 
of sins. It is well known that the late Dean 
Stanley wrote an able essay just befoie his 
death in which he' grounded the doctrine of In- 
fant Baptism on this family idea.* 

The Dean discusses both the action and sub- 
ject of baptism, and it is certainly worth while 
to notice carefully what he says, especially as 
he writes in the interests of Pedobaptism. The 
Dean's candor is truly refreshing, and his abil- 
ity to treat the subject in the most comprehen- 
sive and scholarly manner cannot be doubted. 
Indeed, his reasoning is so unlike that of many 
smaller minds — who seek to defend sprinkling 
on philological and scriptural grounds — that we 
feel half inclined to foro^ive the blunders he has 
made in view of his frankness and catholicity. 
His scholarship and position enabled him to 



* October number of the Nineteenth Century, 1879, 

36 



DKAN STANIvEY ON BAPTISM 

Speak as one having authority, and not as the 
scribes who write pretentious essays on the 
generic meaning of baptizo. The late Dean 
of Westminster does not hesitate to declare that 
immersion was the only form of baptism known 
in the apostolic Church, and that ^'for the first 
thirteen centuries the almost universal practice 
of baptism was that of which we read in the 
New Testament, and which is the very mean- 
ing of the word 'baptize' — that those who were 
baptized were plunged, submerged, immersed 
into water. ' ' 

After such an admission as this, the reader 
will be anxious to know how the distinguished 
Dean accounts for the fact that, ''with few ex- 
ceptions, the whole of the Western Churches 
have now substituted for the bath the ceremony 
of sprinkling a few drops of water on the face.'' 
Let the following extract from the Dean's arti- 
cle speak for him: 

"The reason of the change is obvious. The practice of 
immersion, apostolic and primitive as it was, was pecu- 
liarly suitable to the Southern and Bastern countries for 
which it was designed, and peculiarly unsuitable to the 
tastes, and the convenience, and the feelings of the coun- 
tries of the North and West. Not by any decree of Coun- 
cil or Parliament, but by the general sentiment of Chris- 
tian liberty, this great change was effected. Not begin- 
ning till the thirteenth century, it has driven the ancient 
Catholic usage out of the whole of Europe. There is no 
one who would now wish to go back to the old practice. 

37 



THE FUNDAMENTATv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

It had, no doubt, the sanction of the apostles and of their 
Master. It had the sanction of the venera1)le Churches of 
the early ages, and of the sacred countries of the East. 
Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the ancient Church 
(except in the rare case of death-beds or extreme neces- 
sity) as no baptism at all. Almost the first exception was 
the heretic Novatian. It still has the sanction of the pow- 
erful religious community which numbers amongst its 
members such noble characters as John Bunyan, Robert 
Hall, and Havelock. In a version of the Bible which the 
Baptist Church has compiled for its own use in America, 
where it excels in number all but the Methodist, it is 
thought necessary (and on philological grounds it is quite 
correct) to translate John the Baptist by John the Im- 
merser. It has been defended on sanitary grounds. Sir 
John Floyer dated the prevalence of consumption to the 
discontinuance of the baptism by immersion. But speak- 
ing generally, the Christian civilized world has decided 
against it. It is a striking example of the triumph of com- 
mon sense and convenience over the bondage of form and 
custom. ' ' 

It is unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that 
this reasoning clearly contradicts the statement 
which the Dean makes concerning the preva- 
lence of immersion in many of the Northern 
countries, such as when he says, "The cold cli- 
mate of Russia has not been found an obstacle 
to its continuance throughout that vast em- 
pire." Nor need we point to the admission, 
which he makes in the first part of his article, 
that Christ, in selecting baptism, did so be- 
cause it was "the most delightful, the most 
ordinary, the most salutary of social observ- 

38 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

ances.'* It is certainly no fault of the Dean's rf- 
ability or the elegance of his style that these 
antagonisms appear. The real difficulty, we 
think, is that "the general sentiment of Chris- 
tian liberty" — whatever that may mean — finds 
itself in direct conflict with too many stubborn 
facts to allow the Dean's theory to pass un- 
challenged. 

But it is not with these contradictions that 
we are chiefly concerned. There is a much 
more serious view of the case. That serious 
view is presented in the fact that what was so 
wisely selected by Christ, so constantly prac- 
ticed by the apostles, and so persistently ad- 
hered to by the Church for thirteen centuries, 
should at last be so generally "decided against" 
by the "Christian civilized world" as to prac- 
tically substitute a different ordinance alto- 
gether for that which was commanded by 
Divine authority. Surely this fact raises the 
important question, whether we shall obey God 
or men, Christ and his apostles, or "the gen- 
eral sentiment of Christian liberty," as ex- 
pressed in the decision of the "Christian civil- 
ized world"? In calling attention to this im- 
portant matter we do not wish to be understood 
as insensible to the great value of a "triumph 
of common sense and convenience over the 
bondage of form and custom." In mere mat- 

39 



THE FUNDAMENTAL KRROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

^ ters of expediency, we should doubtless go as 
far as Dean Stanley himself in consulting 
* 'tastes, convenience and feelings." But we 
are now dealing with a very different thing. 
Baptism is a Divine ordinance; a definite com- 
mand, solemnly expressing a great fact, and 
cannot therefore be safely set aside and some- 
thing else substituted for it without higher au- 
thority than ''the general sentiment of Chris- 
tian liberty," or the "triumph of common 
sense and convenience over the bondage of form 
and custom." 

But should any one contend that the change 
from immersion to sprinkling is a small matter 
— a mere change of form — and not therefore to 
be regarded as seriously affecting what was 
divinely commanded, we beg such a one to 
ponder well Dean Stanley's estimate of this 
change. He says: 

"It is a greater change even than that which the Rornan 
Catholic Church has made in administering the Sacrament 
of the Ivord's Supper in the bread without the wine. For 
that was a change which did not affect the thing that was 
signified; whereas the change from immersion to sprink- 
ling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic language 
regarding baptism, and has altered the very meaning of 
the word." 

Surely such a change as is here indicated 
ous^ht to cause "the Christian civilized world" 
to hesitate before it is finally adopted. That 

40 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

which ''sets aside the larger part of the apos- 
tolic language regarding baptism, and alters 
the very meaning of the word," cannot, I 
think, be regarded as simply a "triumph of 
common sense and convenience over the bond- 
age of form and custom." It is, rather, no 
doubt, the abrogation of a Divine institution 
and the substitution for it that which is wholly 
human; and this being true, it is not strange 
that "the substitution of sprinkling for immer- 
sion," to use the Dean's own language, "must 
to many at the time, as to the Baptist now, 
have seemed the greatest and most dangerous 
innovation." 

In order to present the whole case clearly be- 
fore the mind of the reader, it may be well to 
summarize the chief points in the article we 
are reviewing. The following, I think, fairly 
represent the Dean's views: 

1. Immersion was wisely selected, not only 
because it was "a most delightful, ordinary and 
salutary observance," but because it was sig- 
nificantly expressive of the design of baptism. 

2. The word which Christ used to express 
baptism is literally translated by immersion. 

3. Christ himself was immersed. 

4. The apostles uniformly practiced immer- 
sion. 



41 



THE FUNDAMRNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

5. Immersion was the invariable practice of 
the Primitive Chnrcli. 

6. It was the almost universal practice of 
Christians for the first thirteen centuries. 

7. When the substitution of sprinkling for 
immersion began to find favor it was stoutly 
resisted as an innovation. 

8. Even in some of the cold countries 
(Russia for instance) the innovation has been, 
up to the present time, successfully resisted. 

9. Immersion, ''even in the Church of Eng- 
land, is still observed in theory. Elizabeth 
and Edward VI. were both immersed. The 
Rubric in the Public Baptism for Infants en- 
joins that, unless for special cases, they are to 
be dipped, not sprinkled. '^ 

10. The change from immersion to sprink- 
ling is greater than that which the Roman 
Catholic Church has made in administering the 
Sacrament of the I^ord's Supper in the bread 
without the wine. 

And now, in the face of all these facts and 
admissions, we are called upon to be reconciled 
to this great change in supreme deference to 
"the general sentiment of Christian liberty" 
which, in the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, was so powerfnl as to practically set 
aside "the oldest ceremonial ordinance that 
Christianity possesses" by adopting a ceremony 

42 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

more "congenial" to the "customs of regions 
and climates" where immersion was thought to 
be not so "suitable" or so "convenient." Un- 
doubtedly the Dean is right in saying that all 
this "shows how the spirit which lives and 
moves in human society can override even the 
most sacred ordinances." But before we com- 
mit ourselves to this daring innovation, we 
should certainly pause and ask, by what au- 
thority are we justified in making so great a 
change? Do we follow the Divine or human? 
Christ or men? the teaching of the Holy Spirit, 
or "the spirit which lives and moves in human 
society"? 

The transition from the action of baptism to 
the subject is not difficult. What the Dean has 
said with respect to the change from immersion 
to sprinkling has prepared us for the change 
which took place as to the proper subject of 
baptism. We shall no doubt find the later 
change produced by practically the same condi- 
tions as those which brought about the change 
from immersion to sprinkling. 

Candor is always a commendable virtue, but 
it is often a very dangerous witness. Hence, 
while no one, I think, can fail to respect 
Dean Stanley's admirable candor in treating 
the subject of Infant Baptism, it must at the 
same time appear to the most casual reader 

43 



THK FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

that his honesty has led him to make admis- 
sions quite contrary to the notion that infant 
bajDtism is of Divine origin. Of course it is 
well known to those who are acquainted with 
the history of the baptismal controversy, that 
many Pedobaptists have conceded as much as 
the distinguished Dean of Westminster; and 
yet it would be difhcult, perhaps, to find a 
clearer statement of the exact truth in the mat- 
ter than is presented in the following extract 
from the Dean's article. After speaking of the 
change from immersion to sprinkling, he says: 

"Another change is not so complete, but is perhaps more 
important. In the Apostolic Age, and in the three centu- 
ries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, 
those who came to baptism came in full age, of their own 
deliberate choice. We find a few cases of baptism of chil- 
dren; in the third century we find one case of the baptism 
of infants. Even amongst Christian households the in- 
stances of Chrysostom, Gregory, Nazianzen, Basil, Ephrem 
of Edessa, Augustine, Ambrose, are decisive proofs that it 
was not only not obligatory, but not usual. They had 
Christian parents, and yet they were not baptized till they 
reached maturity. The liturgical service of baptism was 
framed entirely for full-grown converts, and is only by con- 
siderable adaptation applied to the case of infants. 
Gradually, however, the practice spread, and after the fifth 
century the whole Christian world, East and West, Cath- 
olic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian (with the 
single exception of the sect of the Baptists before men- 
tioned), have baptized children in their infancy. Where- 
as in the early ages adult baptism was the rule and infant 
baptism the exception, in later times infant baptism is the 
rule and adult baptism the exception." 

44 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

It will be seen that the learned Dean does not 
positively assert that there was no baptism of 
infants in the apostolic age, bnt he is very de- 
cided in affirming that there is no example of 
such baptism. He claims that for the first 
three centuries the almost universal practice was 
that * 'those who came to baptism came in full 
age, of their own deliberate choice." Only 
one case of infant baptism is found, and that in 
the third century. In fact, all the evidence 
goes to show that the practice had no place in 
the Primitive Church, and that it was not till 
after the fifth century that it became general. 

Here, then, is a change from apostolic usage 
as great as, if not greater than, that from immer- 
sion to sprinkling. That change "set aside the 
larger part of the apostolic language regarding 
baptism, and altered the very meaning of the 
word." What shall we now say of this "more 
important" departure from primitive practice? 
Can it, too, be justified on the ground that "the 
general sentiment of Christian liberty," as ex- 
pressed in the decision of "the Christian civil- 
ized world," is more potential in authority than 
apostolic precept and example? If so, it seems 
to us that the much-talked-of Roman tendencies 
in certain Protestant churches need not any 
longer give great concern. For, if it be true, 
as Dean Stanley affirms, that "the substitution 

45 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

of infant baptism, like the change from immer- 
sion to sprinkling, is a triumph of Christian 
charity," why may not that "charity" be made 
to cover the multitude of sins which are now 
laid at the door of the Ritualists of the Estab- 
lished Church? And what if these Ritualists 
should appeal to the "decision of the Christian 
civilized world," and claim a large majority in 
favor of their practices? Would such a church- 
man as Dean Stanley was extend to them the 
"charity" which "triumphs" over Divine au- 
thority to such an extent as to make the substi- 
tution of infant for believers' baptism a thing 
in which to rejoice? Surely, he would not wish 
to escape the consequence of his own logic, and 
yet if majorities are to decide such questions as 
are under consideration, it cannot for a moment 
be doubted that "the Christian civilized world" 
would soon restore to all the Pedobaptist 
Churches a number of practices that arose con- 
temporaneous with Infant Baptism, but are now 
generally repudiated by Protestants. I refer to 
"Exorcism," "Infant Communion," "Anoint- 
ing with Oil," etc., etc. After the fifth century 
these were in quite as high repute as Infant 
Baptism. So it appears that the very "Chris- 
tian charity" which "triumphed" over the 
Word of God, and introduced one of these, was 
quite equal to the introduction of the others; 

46 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

and the same charity which allows one of them 
now need not be stretched to any considerable 
extent in order to make canonical the whole 
catalogue. And when "the general sentiment 
of Christian liberty" has accomplished all this, 
we do not see why the Bible, as a book of au- 
thority, may not be dispensed with altogether. 
Then our "charity" would be fully equal to the 
demands of modern Rationalism, and could 
stand alone, without being burdened with the 
qualifying term "Christian," as used by the 
Dean of Westminster. 

But it is proper that the good Dean himself 
should be heard in justification of a practice 
which had no place in the Apostolic Church, 
and which did not become general until after 
the fifth century. His explanation of the mat- 
ter is, doubtless, as satisfactory as can be given, 
and if it is not entirely conclusive to those who 
still hold the Word of God in greater reverence 
than the traditions of the fathers, let all such 
remember that no explanation, however plausi- 
ble, is possible that will entirely satisfy their 
scruples. But to those who believe that "the 
spirit which lives and moves inhuman society" 
should guide in religious matters rather than 
the Holy Spirit, Dean Stanley's reasoning will 
doubtless be accepted as an end of the contro- 
versy. 

47 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

111 accounting for and justifying the change, 
the worthy Dean begins by saying: "There may 
have been many reasons for it, some bad, some 
good," and then proceeds to give the three 
reasons which he thinks have been most influ- 
ential in bringing it about, and sustaining it to 
the present time. 

1. "One, no doubt, was the superstitious 
feeling which regarded baptism as a charm, in- 
dispensable to salvation, and which insisted on 
imparting it to every human being who could 
be touched with water, however unconscious." 

2. "There is a better side to the growth of 
the practice which, even if it did not mingle in 
its origin, is at least the cause of its continu- 
ance. It lay deep in earh^ Christian feeling 
that the fact of belonging to a Christian house- 
hold consecrated every member of it." 

3. "There is a further reason to be found in 

the character of children If our 

Divine Master did not think them unfit to be 
taken in His arms, and receive His own gra- 
cious blessing, when He was actually here in 
bodily presence, we need not fear to ask His 
blessing upon them now. Infant baptism is 
thus a recoo^nition of the Q^ood which there is in 
every human soul." 

The first of these reasons is given chiefly to 
account for the origin of infant baptism, while 

48 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

the other two are relied upon to justify its con- 
tinuance since it became so general. And thus 
it happens, after fifteen hundred years of the 
practice of infant baptism, there is nothing bet- 
ter offered in its defense, by one of the ablest 
men in Christendom, than a perverted view of 
the design of baptism, a sentimental notion of 
family relations, and a singular fancy that "in- 
fant baptism is a recognition of the good there 
is in every human soul." 

Neander, as we have already seen, in his 
Church History, fully justifies the Dean's state- 
ment as to the orign of Infant Baptism. It 
should be remembered that the learned historian 
says: "When the notion of a magical influence 
or charm connected with the sacrament contin- 
ally gained ground, the theory was finally 
evolved of the zincoiiditional necessity of infant 
baptism^ And John Wesley goes still further 
by clearly intimating the eternal damnation of 
infants without "original sin" is "washed away 
in baptism." In his ^^ Doctrinal Tracts ^''^ page 
251, edition 1832, we find the following remark- 
able language: 

"x\s to the grounds of it: If infants are guilty of original 
sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing in the 
ordinary way they cannot be saved unless this be Avashed 
in baptism. It has been already proved that this original 
stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby they 
are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation." 
4 49 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

This is truly a horrible doctrine, and we are 
glad to notice that Dean Stanley, at least, seeks 
some other ground for the justification of a prac- 
tice which had its origin in a view of human 
nature and baptism as repulsive as it is false. 
But, from a scriptural standpoint. Dean Stan- 
ley's reasons are no better than John Wesley's. 
The reference to Christ blessing little children 
is wholly irrelevant. Had he baptized these 
children, or commanded it to be done by others, 
the reference would be in point. The question, 
however, is not about blessings but about bap- 
tizing infants, and no argumentiun ad hominemy 
such as the Dean uses, is likely to be very effec- 
tive in convincing those who in such matters 
prefer a "Thus saith the Lord" to any kind of 
sympathetic appeals to human feelings, how- 
ever tender and eloquent they may be made. 

After all, has not Henry Ward Beeeher stated 
the case about as well as it can be done for the 
advocates of Infant Baptism? In a sermon, 
published in the Christian Union^ Mr. Beeeher 
dispenses with all the grounds heretofore relied 
upon, and comes directly to the point in the 
following original style: 

"I have no authority from the Bible for the baptism of 
infants, and I want none; I have better authority for it than 
if even the Bible commanded it. I have tried it, and know 
from actual experience that it is a good thing. I have the 

50 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

same divine authority for it that I have for making an ox- 
yOke — it works well, and therefore it is from God." 

This puts the whole argument, founded on 
*'the general sentiment of Christian liberty," 
in very forcible English, and should have had 
a place, at least as a foot-note, in Dean Stan- 
ley's article, where he struggles so heroically to 
contradict the old I^atin saying, ex nihilo^ 
nehiljit — from nothing, nothing comes. 

But w^e cannot close this chapter without 
calling attention to a very serious view of the 
whole matter. How can Protestants expect the 
people to reverence the Word of God, and ac- 
cept it as authoritative in religious matters, 
when Christian teachers are willing to perform 
one of the most solemn acts connected with 
Christianity — an act done into the name of the 
Father, Son and Holy Spirit — but for the per- 
formance of which, as regards infants, there is 
no precept or example in the entire Bible? It 
seems to me that the people must either lose 
their respect for God's Word — which is practi- 
cally laid aside in the case under considera- 
tion — or else utterly repudiate the teaching 
which has its root in a practice conceded by its 
own advocates, to exist without any authority 
from Christ or His apostles. If there is any 
middle ground here, I confess I am unable 
to see it. 

51 



THE FUNDAMBNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

But the family idea alone could never have 
evolved the unconditional necessity of such a 
practice, nor made it so general, nor given it 
such a prominent place in the history of the 
Church as it has held. It was the idea that in- 
fants are exposed (as Wesley affirms) to eternal 
damnation, on account of original sin, and that 
baptism is the ordinary means by which this 
sin is washed awav, to which must be ascribed 
the necessity of infant baptism, and also its 
rapid growth as a practice after it was first 
introduced. Parents could not endure the 
thought that their children might be lost, if 
their baptism should be neglected, and conse- 
quently the love of parents for their children 
became practically the motive power in the 
spread of infant baptism. Hence it will be 
seen that, whatever evils have attended infant 
baptism (and these have certainly been mani- 
fold), there can be no doubt about the fact that 
these evils may all be directly or indirectly 
traced to the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- 
tion. 

THE MODERN THEORY. 

Of course I am not ignorant of the fact that 
some modern writers, who repudiate the doc- 
trine of Baptismal Regeneration, claim to de- 
duce infant baptism from the teaching of the 

52 



DEAN STANLEY ON BAPTISM 

New Testament. But in order to successfully 
do this, it is clearly evident that infants must 
be included in the Great Commission which our 
Divine Lord gave to his apostles, and in which 
they were commanded to disciple and baptize 
the nations. Are infants thus included? Surely 
the very terms of the commission seem to nec- 
essarily exclude them, since it is practically im- 
possible for the commission to be applicable to 
infants as regards hearing the Gospel, believ- 
ing the Gospel, repenting, receiving the remis- 
sion of sins, or salvation, etc. Indeed, the only 
thing in the commission that can be possibly 
claimed for infants is baptism; and even this 
cannot be reasonably claimed if baptism is 
rightly regarded as the act of the person who re- 
ceives it. And yet this is undoubtedly the 
scriptural view of baptism; and if this view is 
admitted, infants are necessarily excluded from 
all participation in the commission which 
Christ gave to his apostles. 

But if it should still be contended that they 
are included in the commission, then one of 
three things must follow: (i) Either the apos- 
tles did not understand the commission; (2) 
they did not practice what they understood it 
to teach; or (3) a large and important part of 
their practice is not recorded. The first hy- 
pothesis impeaches their inspiration; the second 

53 



THB FUNDAMENTAIv KRROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

impeaches their honesty; while the third im- 
peaches the character of the book which re- 
cords their practice. Any view of the case that 
may be taken is at once fatal to the doctrine of 
infant baptism. And yet one of these hypoth- 
eses must be maintained, or else infants are 
logically excluded from the commission, and 
consequently excluded from baptism; for what is 
not authorized in the commission as regards 
baptism ought not to be maintained as a practice 
of the Church. And in view of the complete 
silence of the New Testament on the question of 
Infant Baptism, it is certain that Martin lyUther 
was right when he said: "It cannot be proved 
by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism 
was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first 
Christians after the apostles." 



54 



CHAPTER IV. 
REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

Just here it may be well to indicate briefly 
some of the main reasons why infant baptism 
should be rejected. 

I. It is undoubtedly un scriptural. There is 
no way to escape the conclusion submitted in 
the foregoing reference to the Great Commis- 
sion unless it can be shown that the household 
baptisms recorded in the New Testament do 
furnish a definite record of the baptism of in- 
fants. But few, if any, competent critics would 
rest their case upon any such evidence. The 
Rev. Joseph Agar Beet, one of the ablest writers 
of the Methodist Church, says in "A Treatise 
on Christian Baptism," pages 28 and 29, as 
follows: 

"It must be at once admitted that the New Testamient 
contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the 
days of the apostles. It is true that St. Paul baptized the 
houses of Stephanas and of Lydia, and the Philippian 
Gaoler and all who belonged to him (1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 
16:15, 33). But this mention of baptized households by no 
means proves or suggests that he baptized infants. For a 
courtier from Capernaum and Crispus at Corinth believed 
with their entire households (John 4:54; Acts 18:18). So 
apparently did the Gaoler (Acts 16:34). Cornelius feared 
God with all his house (Acts 10:2). And the household of 

55 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

Stephanas was a first-fruit of Achaia (1 Cor. 16:15). This 
does not mean that in these five families there were no in- 
fants, or that the infants believed; but that all cai:)able of 
understanding the Gospel believed it. Just so in reference 
to baptism. The early readers of the Book of Acts and of 
St. Paul's Epistles knew whether it was usual to baptize 
infants. If it was, they would infer that, if in these three 
families there were infants, St. Paul baptized them. If it 
was not, they would interpret these words to mean that he 
baptized all who were of suitable age. From these pas- 
sages, therefore, we can draw no inference whether or not 
infants were baptized in the apostolic Churches. And we 
have no clearer references in the New Testament. 

*'In my Commentary on the passage I have endeavored 
to show that 1 Cor. 7:14 affords no evidence whether in- 
fants were or were not baptized in the apostolic Churches. 

'•It must also be admitted that in one important point 
the baptism of an infant differs from that of a believer. In 
baptism an infant is absolutely passive, whereas a believer 
is himself the most conspicuous actor. So great is this 
difference that two of the most important assertions about 
baptism in the New Testament are altogether inapplicable 
to the baptism of infants. Certainly, even though baptized 
for Christy they have not so put on Christ as to be in him 
so)is of God through faith (Gal. 3:26). For, to say that in- 
fants have faith, is to make St. Paul's words meaningless. 
Nor have infants been raised with Christ through faith in 
the working of God, who raised him from the dead (Col. 
2:12)." 

Kqiially conclusive is the testimony of the 
learned and candid historian, Dr. Atigustus 
Neander, in his "Planting and Training of the 
Church," pages i6i and 162. He says: 

*' Since baptism marked the entrance into communion 
with Christ, it resulted from the nature of the rite that a 

56 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

confession of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer would be 
made by the person to be baptized; and in the latter part 
of the Apostolic Age there are found indications of the ex- 
istence of such a practice. As baptism was closely united, 
with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith 
and baptism were always connected with one another; and 
thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was 
performed only in the instances where both could meet 
together, and that the practice of infant baptism was un- 
known at this period. We cannot infer the existence of 
infant baptism from the instance of the baptism of whole 
families, for the passage in 1 Cor. 16:15 shows the fallacy 
of such a conclusion, as from that it appears that the 
whole family of Stephanas, who were baptized by Paul, 
consisted of adults. That not till so late a period as (at 
least certainly not earlier than) Irenseus, a trace of infant 
baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an 
apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is 
evidence rather against thanyf^r the admission of its apos- 
tolic origin; especially since, in the spirit of the age when 
Christianity appeared, there were many elements which 
must have been favorable to the introduction of infant 
baptism — the same elements from which proceeded the 
notion of the magical effects of outward baptism, the 
notion of its absolute necessity for salvation, the notion 
which gave rise to the myth that the apostles baptized the 
Old Testament saints in hades. How very much must 
infant baptism have corresponded with such a tendency, if 
it had been favored by tradition! It might indeed be 
alleged, on the other hand, that after infant baptism had 
long been recognized as an apostolic tradition, many other 
causes hindered its universal introduction, and the same 
causes might still earlier have stood in the way of its 
spread, although a practice sanctioned by the apostles. 
But these causes could not have operated in this 'tnanner in 
the post-apostolic age. In later times, we see the opposi- 
tion between theory and practice in this respect actually 



the; FUNDAMENTATv KRROR ok CHRISTENDOM 

coming forth. Besides, that a practice which could not 
altogether deny the marks of its later institution, although 
at last recognized as of apostolic founding, could not for a 
length of time pervade the life of the Church, is some- 
thing quite different from this: that a practice really pro- 
ceeding from apostolic institution and tradition, notwith- 
standing the authority that introduced it, and the circum- 
stances in its favor arising from the spirit of the times, 
should yet not have been generally adopted. And if we 
wish to ascertain from whoin such an institution origi- 
nated, we should say, certainly not immediately from 
Christ himself." 

Another important witness is Dr. William 
Cunningham, for many years Professor of 
Church History, New College, Edinburgh. In 
his *' Historical Theology" he writes in defense 
of infant baptism, but on page 144 of volume II. 
he makes the following admissions as regards 
the teaching of Scripture: 

"The general tenor of Scripture language upon the sub- 
ject of baptism applies primarily and directly to the bap- 
tism of adults, and proceeds upon the assumption that the 
profession implied in the reception of baptism by adults — 
the profession, that is, that they had already been led to 
believe in Christ, and to receive Him as their Saviour and 
their Master — was sincere, or corresponded with the real 
state of their minds and hearts. It is necessary, therefore, 
to form our primary and fundamental conceptions of the 
objects and effects of baptism in itself, as a distinct sub- 
ject, and in its bearing upon the general doctrine of the 
sacraments, from the baptism of adults, and not of in- 
fants. The baptisms which are ordinarily described or re- 
ferred to in the New Testament were the baptisms of men 
who had lived as Jews and heathens, and who, having been 

58 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

led to believe in Christ — or, at least, to profess faith in 
Him — expressed and sealed this faith, or the profession of 
it, by complying with Christ's requirement that they 
should be baptized. This is the proper, primary, full idea 
of baptism, and to this the general tenor of the Scripture 
language upon the subject, and the general description of 
the objects and ends of baptism, as given in oiir Confession 
of Faith, and in the other confessions of the Reformed 
Churches, are manifestly adapted." 

In harmony with this testimony it would be 
possible to quote from the ablest writers of all 
ages of the Church. The most that can be 
said for infant baptism on scriptural grounds is 
that it may be inferred from certain passages 
and facts, but it is certainly nowhere either 
commanded or referred to in all the New Tes- 
tament Scriptures. Surely, a matter involving 
so much ought to be accepted on nothing less 
than a divine precept or example. 

2. The practice of infant baptisfn is unrea- 
sonable. There is nothing in it that meets the 
requirements of this scientific age. It belongs 
to a period when magic dominated the religious 
mind; when the incantations of a priesthood, 
dealing in magic, took the place of the Script- 
ures and common sense. While we ought not 
to respect that arrogant rationalism which de- 
mands a reason for everything, or that inexor- 
able science which refuses to accept anything as 
true which cannot be demonstrated in the sci- 

59 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

entiiic laboratory, at the same time we should 
certainly seek to avoid in our religious practice 
whatever unnecessarily antagonizes the ration- 
alistic and scientific spirit of the age. We 
surely ought not to needlessly make our religion 
objectionable where it may be scripturally made 
attractive. Infant baptism carries with it a 
sort of magical charm which is most unreason- 
able to many of the very best thinkers of the 
present day. It is, therefore, unwise to perpet- 
uate a;i institution which stands right in the 
path of the most progressive notions of the 
learned world at the beginning of the twentieth 
century, unless there is a divine warrant for so 
doing, and we have just seen that this warrant 
cannot be found. 

Professor Harnack, in his "History of Dog- 
ma," pages 306, 308, shows how, early in the 
history of the Church, mysteries and charms 
took the place of that which was reasonable in 
Christianity, and thus helped to canonize infant 
baptism. He says: 

* 'This tendency, however, leads directly over to the pa- 
ganizing of Christianity, or, rather, is already a symptom 
of it. The mathcesis becomes mustagogia; the latter, how- 
ever, originally a shadowy union of the spiritual and sen- 
suous, tends more and more to magic and jugglery. In 
this the riUial is the chief thing; nothing, however, is 
more sensitive than a ceremony; it does not bear the slight- 
est change. In so far now as the formulas of faith lost 

60 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

more and more their significance as inathccsis, and be- 
came in ever higher degree constituents of the ritual, ex- 
pressing at the same time the meaning and purpose of it, i. 
e., to make divine, they permitted no longer of any change. 
Wherever the dogma appear valuable only as a relic of 
olden times, or only in ritualistic ceremony, there the his- 
tory of dogma is at an end. In its place comes the Diysta- 
gogic theology^ and indeed the latter, together and in close 
union with scholasticism, took already in the sixth cent- 
ury the place of the history of dogma. The mystagogic 
theology, however, has two sides. On the one side, in cre- 
ating for itself upon the earth a new world, and in making 
of things, persons and times mysterious symbols and vehi- 
cles, it leads to the religion of necromancy, i. e.^ back to 
the lowest grade of religion; for to the masses, and finally 
even to theologians, the spirit vanishes, and tliQ phlegina, 
the consecrated matter, remains. * * * 

*'At the beginning of the fourth century the Church 
already possessed a great array of mysteries, the number 
and bounds of which, however, had by no means been defi- 
nitely determined. Among them baptism, together with 
the accompanying unction, and the eucharist were the 
most esteemed; from these also some of the other mys- 
teries have been evolved. Symbolic ceremonies, originally 
intended to accompany these mysteries, became independ- 
ent. Thus confirmation had its origin, which Cyprian al- 
ready numbered as a special '■ saci'amentum ^'^ Augus- 
tine pointed it out as sacranientum chrismatis, and the 
Areopagite called it musteerion teletees vturon. lyater 
men spoke also of a mystery of the sign of the cross, of 
relics, of exorcism, of marriage, etc., and the Areopagite 
enumerates six mysteries: Photisniatos^ sunaxeos^ eiV oun 
koinonias^ teletees tnuron, hieratikon teleioseon^ monachi- 
kees teleioseos and mustecria epi ton hieros kekoinieetnenon. 
The enumeration was very arbitrary; mystery was anything 
sensuous whereby something holy might be thought or en- 
joyed. They corresponded to the heavenly mysteries, 

61 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

which have their source in the trinity and incarnation. As 
each fact of revelation is a mystery, in so far as the Divine 
has through it entered into the sensuous, so in turn is each 
sensuous medium, even a word or action, a mystery, so 
soon as the sensuous is a symbol or vehicle — there has 
never been a strict distinction between them — of the Di- 
vine." 

In reference to the mystery of the sacra- 
ments, Dr. H. Martensen, in his ^^ Christian 
Dogmatics ^"^^ page 421, deposes as follows: 

"While the Lutheran and the Reformed doctrine is one 
and the same concerning the number of the sacraments 
and the necessity for faith as the condition of their saving 
efficacy, these Churches differ in their estimate of the mys- 
tery of the sacraments; and the Lutheran Church alone 
has retained the fullness of that mystery. Zwingli did 
away with the mystery altogether, for he looked upon the 
sacraments partly as mere acts of confession, and partly as 
commemorative signs. Calvin takes higher ground, for he* 
looks upon them not only as memorials, but 2.'-, pledges of 
present grace {synibola non absentiuni sed prccsentium^pig- 
nora gratics)^ visible pledges of invisible union with 
Christ. He recognizes a mystery in the sacrament, be- 
cause he assumes that, as pledges of grace, they are accom- 
panied with an invisible gift of grace. lyutlieranism also 
considers the sacraments to be pledges of grace,* and this 
coincidence of doctrine has always been insisted upon by 
the Philippists in this Church — the school of Melanch- 
thon — as the point of union between Luther and Calvin. 
But the distinction comes into view in the consideration of 
each sacrament, because Calvin does not consider that the 
union with Christ in the sacrament is more than a spiritual 



*Confessio Angustana, Part i., Art. xiii. "Signa et testimonia 
voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confirmandam (idem, in 
his, qui utuntur, proposita." Similarly .^^/f?/. Confess. "Ritus qui 
habent mandatum Dei, et quibus addita est promissio gratioe." 

62 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

union; he will not allow that it is spiritually corporeal. 
"We cannot maintain the full reality and distinctiveness of 
the sacrament unless, with lyUther, we recognize therein 
not only a spiritual mystery, but a mystery of nature like- 
wise. If, with Calvin and the Philippists, we suppose 
that there is only a spiritual union, unio inystica^ in the 
sacrament, its distinctive feature will be only its educa- 
tional import." 

In these extracts it is easy to see that the 
dogma of infant baptism had its origin in a 
tendency which ran everything into mysteries; 
and the unreasonableness of the dogma is shown 
the very moment it is associated with the 
lyord's Supper. The later institution is wholly 
unreasonable for infants. Nevertheless, it is 
impossible to separate the class for whom it 
was intended from those for whom baptism was 
intended. There is not even a hint in all the 
New Testament that the two ordinances belong 
respectively to different classes as regards age. 
On the contrary, everything clearly points to 
the fact that, in the primitive Church, the 
Lord's Supper always closely followed baptism. 
Indeed, this is so prominently brought to view 
in the New Testament that just as soon as the 
dogma of infant baptism became popular, the 
practice of infant communion became popular 
also. Nor was this a logical inconsistency. 
One legitimately followed the other. Undoubt- 
edly Baptism and the lyord's Supper were orig- 

63 



THE FUNDAMKNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

inally related to each other so as to suggest 
exactly the result which followed the introduc- 
tion of infant baptism. At any rate infant 
communion arose contemporaneously with in- 
fant baptism, and was strongly advocated by 
such writers as Photius, Cyprian, Augustine, 
etc. The origin of the practice is given by 
Neander as follows: 

"As the church of North Africa was the first to bring 
prominently into notice the necessity of infant baptism, so 
in connection with this they introduced also the comimcn- 
ion of infants; for as they neglected to distinguish with 
sufficient clearness between the sign and the divine thing 
which it signified, and as they understood all that is said 
in the sixth chapter of John's gospel concerning the eating 
of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ to 
refer to the outward participation of the I^ord's Supper, 
they concluded that this, from the very first, was abso- 
lutely necessary to the attainment of salvation. 

"And so it came about, that to the children who were not 
yet able to eat bread, they gave wine. Cfr. Cyprian, de 
lapsis. Once more an example how a superstitious 
abuse, contrary to the institution, led to a separation of the 
elements of the supper. — Church History^ Vol. /, p. 333. 

In Henry C. Idea's ' 'Studies in Church His- 
tory,'^ the following statement is made con- 
cerning Infant Communion: 

"Not satisfied with the frequent opportunities thus 
afforded of participating in the communion, pious souls 
would carry the Eucharist home with them, that they 
might enjoy its benefits at all times, and so universal was 
its administration, that infants of the tenderest years, as 

64 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

soon as they received baptism, were expected to be brought 
regularly to the altar, where they joined unconsciously in 
the sacred mysteries, and an abuse at one time arose by 
which the holy symbol was even given to the dead — a 
profanation sharply reproved by the third council of Car- 
thage in 397." 

Dr. Van Oosterzee suggests the following 
irenicon in his Christian Dogmatics, but we 
fear it will not meet the case: 

*l.This is not the place for entering on an extended criti- 
cism of the Lutheran conception of the Sacraments; else it 
would not be difficult to demonstrate that it did not remain 
entirely free from the leaven of Rome, and that in its con- 
sistent development it also leads back.to the doctrine of 
the opus operatum. To the Reformed proposition, that 
the signs of the New Testament as such do not immedi- 
ately impart, but only visibly represent, the gifts of the 
grace of God (non exhibent, sed significant), though the 
personal enjoyment of this grace is secured to the believ- 
ing use of them; to this doctrine, in our estimation, is un- 
doubtedly due the praise of greater simplicity, clearness 
and scripturalness. It is, however, a different question, 
whether the entire conception of the Sacraments might not 
be removed from the Christian doctrine of Salvation, 
without serious loss; and we are almost induced to give an 
affirmative reply when we see the great amount of confu- 
sion and strife which has been caused by this churchly, 
but not scriptural, presentation. We apprehend, at least, 
that Melancthon at first spoke rather of signs than of Sacra- 
ments, as when in his Loci (1521) he writes, '■'■Quae alii 
Sacranienta^ nos potius signa appcllamus^ aid,, si ita libet^ 
signa Sacramentalia''\' that in later days the Quakers not 
only considered these signs and seals themselves super-; 
fluous, but had already protested against the name; and 
that, to mention no others, Schleiermacher (a. a. O., § 136, 
5 65 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

sqq.) condemns the general treatment of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper under that appellation, and wishes that the 
entire expression should not, if choice were given, be 
naturalized in the ecclesiastical usage. Perhaps, if this 
comprehensive appellation were not used, some of the 
misty views concerning the significance and force of Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper might be avoided. On the 
other hand, however, we must confess that much may be 
said in favor of combining two relatively equivalent in- 
stitutions under one banner; that which has already 
existed for a long time, even if only for the sake of clear- 
ness, has a certain right of existence if at least it is not ab- 
solutely pernicious; and since even the New Testament 
seems once to point out the two institutions simulta- 
neously, so may the churchly conception of the Sacraments 
be maintained as combining the two, provided that every- 
thing be removed from it which cannot be sufficiently 
justified from the doctrine of the Gospel respecting Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper. The right view of Baptism 
and the Lord's Supper must not be derived from a concep- 
tion of the Sacraments formed in later times; but on the 
contrary, if that name is to be retained, the pure concep- 
tion of the Sacraments must be deduced from the accurate 
view of Baptism and the Lord's Supper." (Vol. II., Page 
744.) 

From the foregoing it will be seen that in- 
fant baptism has nothing in it to commend it to 
the demands of this scientific age. It is un- 
reasonable from any point of view. If it should 
be disassociated from mysteries and charms, 
then we must ask, Cui bojio? Does it benefit 
in any way the child? It would be difficult to 
show how this question should be answered in 
the affirmative. But if it cannot be so an- 

66 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

swered, then it follows that infant baptism 
must rest on the magical relation which is 
assumed in the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- 
tion. This at once makes the dogma unreason- 
able, and consequently unsuitable to the present 
age. 

3. Infant Baptism is unnecessary. As al- 
ready intimated it does no good to the child. 
The child is wholly unconscious of what takes 
place; and this being the fact it surely cannot 
derive any benefit from the baptism, unless the 
baptism carries with it a certain magical power 
which is supposed to reside in it according to 
the teaching of those who hold to the doctrine 
of sacramental grace, as expressed in what is 
known in theology as the ^^Opns Operatiun,'*^ 

INFANTS DO NOT NEED BAPTISM. 

But infants do not need baptism. What 
personal sin have they committed? Even al- 
lowing that they fully share in Adam's trans- 
gression, there is still no reason why they 
should be baptized. The penalty of Adam's 
sin is death; but Christ has taken away the 
sting of death, and robbed the grave of its 
victory. In other words, * 'Where sin abound- 
ed, grace did much more abound"; so that what 
infants lost in Adam they gained in Christ; in- 
deed, they gained much more in Him than they 

67 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

lost by what lias been called original sin. The 
notion, therefore, that infants must be baptized, 
in order to "escape eternal damnation," is as 
untrue to Scripture as it is absurd in the light 
of human reason, and ought at once to be re- 
manded to that theological museum where are 
deposited so many curious speculations of the 
schoolmen. 

Nevertheless, I fear that even now there are 
still not a few who unhesitatingly accept the 
dogma of the early Church upon which the 
practice of infant baptism was founded; while 
there are at least some others who practically 
accept the same view, though they are not 
willing to admit it. Parental love has still 
a most potent influence in keeping the practice 
of infant baptism alive; for the anxiety which 
this love produces finds relief in the doctrine of 
Baptismal Regeneration. Parents may not 
always admit their belief in the doctrine, and 
in some cases they may be half unconscious of 
any such belief; but every one knows, who 
knows anything about the matter at all, that 
infant baptism is still mainly practiced in 
order to satisfy the fears of parents that their 
infants are not safe without it. We may call 
this superstition, if we wish to do so; but no 
matter what we call it, it is precisely this feel- 
ing which originated, multiplied, and perpetu- 

68 



REASONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM 

ated the practice under consideration; and it is 
precisely this feeling which underlies the 
practice to-day, whether parents are willing to 
admit it or not, or whether they are conscious 
of it or not. 

But some may think that our growing in- 
telligence on this subject ought, by this time, 
to practically overcome a purely theological 
superstition. But this view of the matter does 
not take sufficiently into the account all the 
factors involved. It has already been pointed 
out how parental love, when controlled by a 
false anthropology, and by an equally false 
soteriology, became the source and strength 
of infant baptism. It must now be pointed 
out how the love of children for their parents 
enters largely into the maintenance of that 
which the love of parents for children practi- 
cally originated. The respect which children 
show for the baptism they have received from 
their parents is really the answer of child love 
to parental love. Thousands of children, when 
they are grown up, would at once repudiate the 
baptism of their infancy, were it not that they 
feel that such repudiation would necessarily 
imply a want of love for their parents, and 
would show a sort of disrespect to parental 
authority. There can be no doubt about the 
fact that this feeling is widespread, and is also 

69 



THB FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

most potential as regards the maintenance 
of the practice of infant baptism. It is a 
feeling, too, which any one mnst regard with 
considerable sympathy, as it enters so largely 
into all that is sacred in home life. At any 
rate, it is a feeling which must be constantly 
reckoned with by those who wish to overthrow 
a practice which the doctrine of Baptismal 
Regeneration has made holy in the affections of 
both parents for their children and children for 
their parents. 



70 



CHAPTER V. 
SUMMING UP THE CASE. 

This brings me to look at another difficulty 
which is closely akin to the one we have just 
considered. I refer to what may be called the 
Ex Post Facto Difficulty. There is always a 
strong current against any change of established 
customs, habits, or institutions. Infant bap- 
tism is an established practice; or, to use a legal 
phrase, it is already in possession, and this 
is said to be nine points in law. 

Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose 
I wish to sell Mr. Jones a new range for 
his kitchen. I may not have much difficulty in 
convincing him of the superiority of the range 
I offer him over the one he now possesses. 
But he reasons somewhat as follows: *'My 
old range, though not so good as the new 
one, really answers my purpose. It will do. 
I have used it for many years, and it has 
done good, faithful service. It will continue 
to do this service for many years to come; 
so I will hold on to it rather than throw 
it away and substitute for it a new range which 
would require a considerable outlay of money.'* 
This practically settles my range enterprise. 

71 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

There would perhaps be little difficulty in sell- 
ing Mr. Jones my new range if his old one 
was out of the way. The main difficulty 
is in getting rid of the old range; and con- 
sequently, before I can get my new range into 
Mr. Jones' kitchen, it is not enough for me to 
convince him that mine is better than his, but 
I must show him how he may advantageously 
' dispose of the one he now has. 

This illustration will help us to understand 
why so many people hold on to infant baptism, 
even after they are convinced that believers' 
baptism is much better. They somehow or 
other persuade themselves that the former will 
do; and especially since it has been in service 
so long, and has connected with it so many 
sacred associations. And, curiously enough, 
this view of the matter is strongly emphasized 
the moment v/e claim that baptism has no 
regenerative power. When it is suggested 
that baptism is in no way connected with 
salvation, immediately the question arises, why 
then should any one make trouble about it, 
whether it is administered in infancy or in 
old age? Consequently, those who have been 
baptized in infancy do not care to change to 
what really promises no special advantage. In 
other words, they do not care to exchange even 
a worthless range for one that is equally worth- 

72 



SUMMING UP THK CASK 

less. Nor is that all. An ex post facto law 
is always distasteful; and it is not therefore 
strange that those who have been baptized in 
infancy should often rebel against the demand 
made upon them to submit to believers' bap- 
tism — a baptism which virtually requires them 
to undo what has already been accomplished. 

What, then, is a legitimate argument against 
infant baptism, and how can the practice be 
overthrown? I answer, unhesitatingly, by a 
return to Christ's supreme authority in the 
matter, instead of listening to what men have 
decreed. I do not for one moment question the 
powerful influence of family ties, as respects 
the question under consideration; but Christ has 
clearly taught, that unless we love Him more 
than father or mother, houses or lands, we 
can not be His disciples. Hence we must 
consult Him rather than parental love or child 
love, even though His authority should break 
the most sacred ties of the flesh. But as 
regards the case now before us, the moment we 
accept Christ as our sole leader, that moment 
will there be perfect harmony between His 
teaching and all the rational demands of family 
life. The restoration of His supreme authority 
will at once put baptism in its right place; and 
when this is done the doctrine of Baptismal Re- 
generation will no longer have influence, and, 

73 



THB I^UNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

as a consequence, infant baptism will grad- 
ually fall into disuse. The evil practice has 
come out of Baptismal Regeneration, and in 
order to effect a cure we must remove the cause 
of the evil; and as this cause has been found in 
a perverted view of baptism, in conjunction 
with the doctrine of original sin, our present 
hope is in carrying our case over all the tradi- 
tions of an apostate Church back to Christ 
Himself, who divinely commissioned His apos- 
tles to preach the gospel to every creature, and 
to baptize those who believed it. And as 
proof that these apostles did baptize only those 
who were believers, we need go no further 
than simply examine carefully all the cases 
of baptism recorded in the New Testament. 
Such examination will soon reveal the fact 
that infant baptism is wholly without a shred 
of Divine authority. Here, then, is the true 
remedy for the practice, and the case resolves 
itself into the simple query, "Shall we obey 
God rather than men?" 

INFANT BAPTISM IN ITS EFFECTS. 

Before dismissing the practice which we 
have had under consideration, it maybe well to 
notice some of the evil effects which it has 
produced in the development of historic Chris- 
tianity. It is certainly most important that 

74 



SUMMING UP THK CASK 

a clear distinction should be drawn between 
the Christianity of the New Testament and the 
Christianity of the Churches as this is seen 
in Church history. And among the first 
departures from primitive practice may be 
reckoned infant baptism; and some of the evil 
consequences of this practice may be enumer- 
ated as follows: 

(i) It practically substitutes flesh for faith, 
and makes the Church a fleshly institution 
instead of a spiritual household, as was clearly 
intended by its Divine Founder. 

(2) It takes away from the individual the 
highest privilege which the gospel confers, 
viz.^ the privilege of choice. This is one of the 
most fatal evils of infant baptism. 

(3) It sets aside personal responsibility by 
assuming that others may do an act ^ for us 
which can only be performed by ourselves. 
This makes religious life formal and perfunc- 
tory instead of spiritual and real. 

(4) It destroys the beautiful symbolism 
of the gospel, and thereby practically anni- 
hilates what was intended to be a striking and 
perpetual proof of Christ's resurrection. By 
substituting flesh for faith and sprinkling for 
immersion the whole teaching of the sixth 
chapter of Romans becomes meaningless; and 
at the same time the significant monument 

75 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv KRROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

wliicli Divine wisdom has erected to testify to 
the doctrine of the resurrection has been com- 
pletely demolished. But as this doctrine is 
fundamental in Christianity, it becomes at once 
evident that whatever is responsible for Infant 
Baptism must be a fundamental error, since in- 
fant sprinkling has taken away the great monu- 
mental proof of the resurrection. And as Bap- 
tismal Regeneration is responsible for infant 
baptism, it follows, with irresistible force, that 
the former is really what I have characterized 
it, viz.^ the Fundamental Error of Christendom. 
(5) We have already seen that infant bap- 
tism is supported by the notion that there is 
either a magical charm in baptism itself, or 
else there is a magical charm in being born of 
believing parents. Either the baptism itself, 
ex opere operato^ produces a moral change in 
the child, or else a moral change is produced in 
the child by the faith of the parents. In the 
first case, a power is ascribed to baptism which 
it does not possess, while the pernicious doc- 
trine of Baptismal Regeneration is inculcated 
and enforced; in the latter case the equally per- 
nicious doctrine that faith is propagated by 
fleshly descent is practically affirmed and in- 
culcated; and yet this doctrine literally de- 
stroys precisely what is characteristic in Chris- 



-76 



SUMMING UP THE CASE 

tiauity, viz.^ spirituality, personality, and in- 
dividuality. 

(6) The practice of infant baptism brings 
into the Churches a large number of unregene- 
rated members, and thereby makes Church life 
formal, cold, and often fruitless. Do we ask for 
an explanation of what we see and hear as 
respects the want of earnest consecration 
among the members of the Churches? Much 
that will help in such an explanation may 
be found in the fact that many Church members 
have never been regenerated in the true script- 
ural sense of that term. The Church has 
become a fleshly institution. Men and women 
are in it simply because their fathers and 
mothers were in it. In other words, they are 
members by virtue of their fleshly relationship 
to those from whom they are descended. This 
fact is fatal to spiritual development, and prac- 
tically destroys the very meaning of the Church. 

(7) Infant baptism displaces the baptism 
of believers, and to that extent makes void 
a commandment of Christ by a tradition of 
men. This evil can not be over-estimated. It 
might be considered from many points of view, 
but I need not detain the reader with more 
than one or two of the numerous evils growing 
out of this substitution. In the first place, the 
whole order of the gospel has been perverted by 

■ 77 



THE rUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

it. The New Testament order is preaching, 
hearing, believing, and then baptism; but the 
substitution to which attention is called begins 
with baptism instead of ending with it. In- 
fants are supposed to be changed from children 
of wrath to children of God by the priest's 
sprinkling water upon them in the name of the 
Holy Trinity; and yet when these children are 
grown up, evangelicals regard their conversion 
as necessary in order to their salvation. Sure- 
ly nothing could be more contradictory than 
such notions. But this is not all. The worst 
remains yet to be told. If infant baptism 
is allowed to take the place of believers' 
baptism, what becomes of the authority of 
Christ? Undoubtedly, infant baptism must be 
surrendered, or else Christ's supreme authority 
in reliQ:ious matters can no lono^er be enforced. 
Our loyalty to Him ought to make our decision 
both quick and unmistakable as regards this 
important matter. Are we equal to such 
courageous action? It is simply a question of 
Christ or men, which? What answer are we 
ready to give? 

If the reader should still find it difficult 
to account for the spread of a practice which is 
so at variance with the Scriptures, so contrary 
to what is reasonable, and so unnecessary as 
regards any good results that may follow from 

78 



SUMMING UP THE CASE 

it, it will help to iiiiderstaiid the matter by re- 
membering the powerful influence which tradi- 
tion exerts over the human mind. It is true 
that some of the worst features of departures 
from the simplicity of the primitive Church 
have been, to some extent, counteracted, and in 
a few instances discontinued, by the influence 
of the lyUtheran Reformation, but it is still true 
that many are governed by the ' 'tradition 
of the fathers" rather than by the holy Scrip- 
tures. It is not enough to abandon Infant 
Communion and its associated absurdities, but 
it is necessary to break the force of tradi- 
tion right where its influence is most potential. 
Nor can we hope for a complete return to 
apostolic Christianity, and the consequent con- 
version of the world, until the authority of the 
holy Scriptures is substituted everywhere for 
the authority of tradition. 

In reference to this matter it would be easy 
to quote from nearly all the ablest theological 
writers in support of my position. However, it 
is only necessary to give a few extracts from 
some of the ablest and most authoritative Pedo- 
baptist scholars. 

Dr. Martensen, one of the most eminent 
Lutheran writers, deposes as follows against 
tradition and in favor of the Scriptures; 



79 



THE FUNDAMENTAIy ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

"It is obvious that, unless our Christianity is to be a 
merely subjective, private Christianity, there must be 
a canon of Christianity, independent of our subjective 
moods and circumstances. Now, the objective canon for 
all Christianity is, it is true, nothing else than Christ him- 
self^ as a holy, personal Redeemer; and, if it is asked 
where we find Christ, our first answer is the same as 
the Catholic gives — in the Churchy which is the body 
of Christ, the organism of which He is the living, omni- 
present Head, In the Church in its confessions and its 
proclamations, in its sacraments and its sacred services, 
the exalted and glorified Redeemer is present, and bears 
living testimony to Himself in behalf of all who believe 
through the power of the Holy Ghost. It is, however, on 
the other hand, obvious that a correct relation to the 
exalted, glorified Christ is conditional upon a correct 
relation to the historical Christ, to the historical facts 
of His revelation, without which one's conception of the 
exalted and glorified Christ loses itself in the vagueness of 
mysticism. Hence, when we say that we must look for 
Christ in the Church, we are led back to the Apostolic 
Church. The Apostolic Church exhibits to us not onlj^ 
the original form of Christian life, and the relation which 
it presents, as sustained by Christian believers to the in- 
visible Redeemer after His ascent to heaven; but it is, 
at the same time, the possessor of the original image 
of Christ, the image of the Word, which became flesh and 
dwelt among us; the image of Christ as He was historically 
revealed. Now, it being certain that the Apostolic Church, 
as opening the progressive development of the Church, 
contained Christianity in its genuine form, it is quite as 
certain that there must have been delivered to us a trust- 
worthy exhibition of Christianity as it originally was. 
For this is certain: either no one can now make out w^liat 
Christianity is, in which case Christianity is not a divine 
revelation, but only a ni3'th, or a philosophical dogma; or 
there must have been given a reliable tradition of the 
manner in which the apostles conceived and received, 

80 



iSUMMING UP THE CASH 

Christ, whereby every succeeding age is enabled to preserve 
its connection with the Apostolic Church, and with gen- 
uine Christianity. So far we agree with the Catholics. 
Our views, however, differ from theirs in that we, with the 
Reformers, find the perfect, trustworthy form of apostolic 
tradition only in the Holy Scriptures of the New Testa- 
ment. As to tradition — in the sense of something handed 
down by the Church, side by side with the New Testa- 
ment — we hold, with the Reformers, that there is nothing 
in it which can, with such certainty as can the Scriptures, 
demonstrate that it had an immediate or even mediate 
apostolic origin, and that it has preserved through long 
ages its pure, apostolic form. We hold, therefore, that 
the Scriptures are the ultimate touchstone of criticism 
{lapis lyditcs), which must decide on the Christianity 
of tradition. Bven though we must say that the essentials 
of Christianity are found in tradition, that the Spirit 
of Christ controls its development, still experience teaches 
that inspiration was not continued in the post-apostolic 
times, and that very soon, in the formation of traditions, 
there arose a mixture of canonical and apocryphal ele- 
ments. Facts likewise show that, in those periods of the 
post-apostolic Church, in which the growth of tradition 
was not controlled by the Holy Scriptures, a purely 
apocryphal tradition has been developed. The oral tradi- 
tion of the apostles had to be exposed very early to dis- 
figurement. But in contrast with the fleeting and mutable 
character of tradition, the Scriptures remain a firm, im- 
movable witness. Littera scripta manct. This faith in 
the Scriptures which we share with the Reformers; this 
faith in their sufficiency as a canon of Christianity, in the 
completeness of the apostolic testimony therein recorded; 
this faith is a part of our Christian faith in Providence, in 
the guidance of the Church by the Lord; — a faith which, 
like every form of faith in Providence, cannot be demon- 
stratively proved, and can be confirmed only by the lapse 
of time. Within the sphere of our own experience, how- 
ever, we are able to see, in view of the evident uncertainty 
6 81 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

of tradition, that without the vScriptures we should have no 
firm hold, and should not be able to distinguish what is 
canonical from what is apocryphal. "Without the Scrip- 
tures a reformation of the Church in that long period of 
corruption, of darkness, would have been impossible; and 
a new founding of the church, or at least a new mission of 
apostles, would have been necessary.* 

"The principle maintained by the Reformers respecting 
the Scriptures assumes primarily a negative attitude 
towards tradition; but its relation to tradition is by no 
means merely negative, although often so conceived. 
There are indeed those who hold the principle in such 
a form that they admit nothing to be valid in the Church 
whose biblical origin cannot be in the strictest manner 
authenticated! But this view is entirely foreign to the 
I/Utheran Reformation, although traces of it may be found 
in the Swiss. The Lutheran Reformation, in its original 
form, took a positive attitude towards both dogmatic and 
ritual tradition, in so far as it was crciunefiicaltradition; 
i. e.y so far as it bore the mark of no particular Chiurch, 
being neither Greek Catholic nor Roman Catholic, but 
simply catholic. Accordingly, the Evangelical Church 
adopts the oecumenical symbols, the Apostolic, the Ni- 
caean, and the Athanasian, as the purest expression of 
dogmatic tradition. Thus Luther's Catechism retains, in 
the Ten Commandments, the three Creeds, the Lord's 
Prayer, and the doctrine of the sacrament, of baptism, and 
of the altar, the same fundamental elements in w^hich 



*Cf. Thiersch: Vorlesungen iiber Katholicismus und Protestantis- 
mus, vol. i., p. 320. "This is an act of the confidence which we put in 
Divine Providence and in the guidance of the Church by Christ and 
His Spirit. For it was not unknown to the Most High that a time 
would come when whatever was derived from the apostles in the form 
of unwritten tradition would, through the long-continued fault of 
men, become unstable and unreliable, and that His Church would need 
a sacred, uncorrupted record accessible to all, such as His people 
under the Old Covenant had had in the writings of Moses and the 
prophets. P'or, if the Holy Scriptures are not the refuge to which 
the Church is directed to fly, since that which is called tradition has 
become the object of just offence and insoluble doubt, then the Church 
has no refuge at all, no secure position, and there would be left for her 
nothing but to wait to be a second time miraculously founded, or to 
look for a new mission of apostles." 

82 



SUMMING UP THE CASE 

primitive Christianity was propagated among the common 
people through the darkness of the middle ages. Thus, 
too, the Reformers pointed to a series of testimonies out 
from early Church, a co)isc?isiis patntui, in proof of the 
primitive character and age of their doctrine. And 
Luther and Melanchthon recognized not only the impor- 
tance of dogmatic tradition, but manifested also the 
greatest reverence and caution in reference to ritual tradi- 
tion. The importance which they attached to this is 
shown especially in their retaining and defending, in 
opposition to the Anabaptists, infant baptism, a custom 
which is certainly derived not chiefly from the Scriptures, 
but from tradition. The same thing is shown by their 
continuing to observe the principal Christian festivals; 
for these, too, were the product of a continued tradition. 
In like manner they retained many portions of the liturgy 
and of the hymns of the Church, which had acquired 
a value for all Christians. Thus we see that, by their prin- 
ciples. Scripture and tradition were not torn asunder, but 
only placed in their proper relation to each other. And 
even if it may be said that the Reformers, finding them- 
selves entangled in a web of traditions, in Avhich true and 
false, canonical and apocryphal elements were almost in- 
dissolubly mixed together, sometimes cut the knot instead 
of untying it, — this proves nothing against the principle 
of the primacy of Scripture. For this rule cannot be 
annulled or altered so long as nothing can be put beside 
the Scriptures that is able to vindicate for itself the same 
degree of authority." — Christian Dogmatics^ pages 32, 
33^34- 

Dr. Martensen's statement clearly indicates 
how it is that infant baptism is still continued 
in practice notwithstanding there is neither pre- 
cept nor example for it in the Word of God. 
The practice is an inheritance. The Reform- 
ers did not reform sufficiently. They retained 

83 



th:^ fundamentaIv error ok Christendom 

ill the new Churches germs of the old apostasy. 
Among these may be reckoned Infant Baptism. 
This baptism is the fruit of tradition, and con- 
sequently clings to us with all the tenacity of a 
traditional habit or custom. Nor can we get 
rid of it until we throw tradition overboard and 
return to the sim^^le faith and practice of the 
New Testament Scriptures. This will restore 
the supreme authority of the Christ in all mat- 
ters pertaining to faith and practice, and this 
restoration of the Divine for the human will at 
once place Infant Baptism just where it right- 
fully belongs, viz.: among the discredited relics 
of the great Apostasy which has so long 
dominated over and corrupted the Church as 
founded by Christ and organized and instructed 
by His Holy Apostles. 



84 



CHAPTER VI. 
SACERDOTALISM 

We now come to consider the second great 
evil which I mentioned in the early part of this 
volume as coming out of the doctrine of Bap- 
tismal Regeneration, namely, the evil of 
Sacerdotalism. Priestcraft can not flourish 
where Christ reigns supreme, where Divine 
authority is paramount over the commandments 
of men. But when Christ is dethroned, and 
when human creeds or traditions of men are 
substituted for New Testament teaching, it is 
easy to see how Sacerdotalism may logically 
follow. That it has followed with terrible 
effect no one will dispute who has any compre- 
hensive and accurate knowledge of Church his- 
tory. 

The following are just and clear statements 
by two eminent modern scholars of the use and 
character of Sacerdotalism, and it will be seen 
that it had its origin in exactly the same 
source to which Infant Baptism has been 
traced, viz.: the mysterious function of "Sacra- 
mental grace," such as is supposed by ritual- 
ists to reside in Baptism and the Eucharist: 

85 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

"Sacerdotalism was a common characteristic of pagan 
and current Jewish religion. That the Christian minister 
should soon cease to be a brother among the brethren, 
owing common obedience to a common Ivord, and as one 
chosen and set apart for Christian leadership presiding 
over the administration of discipline, of charity, and of the 
ordinances and that he should come to be regarded as a 
mediator between God and men, possessed of magical 
power by virtue of his office, was something that could 
have been avoided only by constant miraculous Divine 
interposition. Such interposition, history attests, was 
withheld. Christianity was a leaven. The life and per- 
sonal labors of the Christ and of His apostles and the 
inspired body of doctrine contained in the New Testa- 
ment were given to the world. Churches were planted and 
organized under inspired guidance. Henceforth the 
leaven was to be allowed to do its work, not certainly 
without Divine help and direction, but with oiit such vio- 
lent interposition as would interfere with development 
along natural lines. Pure Christianity was sure in the end 
to triumph; but not until it had to a great extent absorbed, 
or been absorbed by, paganism. By becoming assimilated 
to paganism, Christianity was to secure the nominal 
allegiance of the peoples of Western Africa, Northern 
Africa, and Europe. Its vitality was never to be entirely 
destroyed, nor was there to be a time when Christ should 
be without faithful witnesses; but organized Christianity 
was to become so corrupt and so perverse that the notes of 
the apostolic Church could scarcely be discovered. 

"The time would come when vital Christianit}^ with the 
Bible as its watchword and its guide, would powerfully re- 
assert itself and would throw off the accretions of centu- 
ries; but so thoroughly entrenched did these corruptions 
become that the process must needs be a slow one. When 
we consider the obstacles to the restoration of apostolic 
Christianity that have presented themselves, the natural 
conservatism that shrinks from departure from traditional 
positions, the tremendous influence of State-churchism 

86 



SACERDOTALISM 

and tlie preference of multitudes of people for a religion of 
forms and ceremonies, with its priestly absolutions and 
consolations, the wonder is that so much progress has 
been made. ......... 

"The departure of the Church of the second and third 
centuries from the apostolic standard was by no means 
confined to the matter of baptism. The same influences 
soon caused the Lord's Supper to be looked upon no 
longer as a memorial feast in which believers partook in a 
purely symbolical w^ay of the broken body and the povured- 
out blood of their crucified, risen and glorified Lord, but 
rather as a mystic ceremony to be celebrated with elabo- 
rate ritual. This change was likewise due to pagan influ- 
ences brought to bear chiefly through the Gnostic sects. 

"Other perversions of Christianity during the early 
centuries are so universally recognized by historians and 
so familiar to all readers of Church history, that they need 
only be barely mentioned here. Sacerdotalism, a constant 
factor in pagan religious systems, soon intruded itself into 
the Christian Church. The ordinances having become 
mysteries must be administered by a ceremonially quali- 
fied priesthood; and as the services became elaborate and 
each function must be performed by a properly qualified 
functionary, clerical gradations came to be multiplied and 
accurately differentiated. Out of the simple polity of the 
apostolic time, in accordance with which each congrega- 
tion chose its own bishops or presbyters and deacons for 
the direction of the spiritual work of the body, the admin- 
istration of discipline and the collection and distribution 
of charities, there was developed, under the influences of 
the time, a system of presidential administration in which 
the chief elder (or bishop) directed the affairs of the local 
church with the assistance and advice of a board of pres- 
byters. As the responsible head of the church he soon 
came to have chief control of the finances, and such con- 
trol tended to increase his relative importance. As Chris- 
tian work spread from older centers the newly established 
congregations were kept in relations of dependence on the 

87 



THK FUNDAMBNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

mother church, or rather, as integral parts thereof. Thus 
the pastor of the central church would have the supervis- 
ion of a greater or smaller number of outside congrega- 
tions, over each of which a presbyter of the central church 
came to preside. Thus arose diocesan episcopacy. At 
first this arrangement was adopted without any anilntious 
intentions on the part of the pastors as seemingly the 
most effective way of conducting Christian work. But as 
the dependent congregations became conscious of strength 
and their presbyter-pastors became restless under epis- 
copal control, which in some cases was no doubt arbi- 
trarily exercised, friction arose between bishops and pres- 
byters. By this time (about the middle of the third cen- 
tury, the case of Cyprian and the Carthaginian presbyters 
is in point) the sacerdotal idea was pretty fully developed. 
Cyprian and those who were like-minded believed that 
ecclesiastical unity was absolutely essential and that 
schism was one of the greatest of evils. They went so far 
as to maintain that outside of the ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion, whose center of unity was found in the episcopate, 
there is no salvation."* 

"What is Sacerdotalism? It is the doctrine that the 
man who ministers in sacred things, the institution 
through which, and the office or order in W'hich, he minis- 
ters, the acts he performs, the sacraments and rites he 
celebrates, are so ordained and constituted of God as to 
be the peculiar channels of His grace, essential to true 
worship, necessary to the being of religion, and the full 
realization of the religious life. The sacerdotal system, 
with all its constituents and accessories, personal, official, 
and ceremonial, becomes a vast intercessory medium, held 
to be, as a whole and in all its parts, though organized 
and administered of man, so the creation and expression 
of the divine will as to be the supernatural, authorized, 
and authoritative agency for the reconciliation of God and 



* Albert Henry Newman, D. D., I^Iy. D., in a history of Anti-Pedo- 
baptism. 

88 



SACERDOTALISM 

man. So conceived, Sacerdotalism is not a question in 
Church polity; it may need bishops, but bishops do not 
necessarily either imply or involve it. A man may, for 
many reasons, exegetical, historical, empirical, hold that 
episcopacy is the true, or the safest, or the best ecclesias- 
tical polity, and yet be strenuously opposed to a priest- 
hood or things priestly. Where the Sacerdotalism comes 
in is where the man and the institution, with the acts and 
articles needed for its operation, are made so of the 
essence of religion that where they are not it cannot be in 
its truth and purity; that to belong to it a man must be- 
long to them; that through them, and them only, can God 
come, as it were, into full possession of the man, or the 
man into full and living fellowship with God. The dif- 
ference then, between Church polity and Sacerdotalism 
may be stated thus: the one is a formal, the other is a 
material, question; the one relates to the form under which 
the Christian Society is to be ordered, maintained, and 
realized, but the other relates to the actual nature and 
matter of the Christian religion, what it is, and what is 
necessary to its being, and its work. The question as to 
Polity is important, but secondary; the question as to 
Sacerdotalism is primary and essential. It signifies, at 
root, what do men mean when they speak of Christ and 
the Christian religion. 

So much for Sacerdotalism in the abstract; let us now 
look at it in the concrete, as in part realized and labouring 
after fuller realization within the Anglican Church. Its 
historical basis and framework is the Anglican polity, 
which it builds on, fills up, and explains thus: It affirms, 
first, that this polity, with its various clerical orders, is of 
divine institution. Christ entrusted to the College of the 
Apostles plenary ministerial authority, sent them as He 
had been sent, endowed with the power to transmit what 
He had given, just as He could give what He had received 
of the Father.* In accordance with this divine authority 

* "A Father in Christ." Sermon preached in St. Paul's Cathedral at 
the consecration of the Bishops of L,incoln and IJxeter, by H. P. Lid- 
don, D. D., D. C. ly. Second edition, pp. 8, 9. 

89 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

they created, and filled with duly qualified men, certain 
orders or grades of ministers. They appointed Deacons to 
serve in things secular, to care for the poor, to preach, 
and even to baptize. They appointed Presbyters or Bish- 
ops to serve in things sacred, to teach, to guide, to 
govern the flock, to celebrate the eucharist — indeed, to 
exercise full ministerial functions, except in the cardinal 
matter "of transmitting the ministry." And, finally, 
they instituted a special order, represented in the primi- 
tive Church by Timothy and Titus, whose high function it 
was to ordain the men chosen to sacred offices. It affirms, 
secondly, that this order survives in the modern bishop, 
who stands thus in the direct line of apostolical succes- 
sion. In Judaism the sacerdotal principle was physical 
and hereditary; in Anglicanism it is social and hieratic; it 
is a theory of lineal hierarchical descent. Levi was in the 
loins of Abraham when Melchisedec met him; the Angli- 
can and Catholic bishops were in the spirit of Paul when 
he ordained Timothy and Titus. It affirms, thirdly, that 
the bishop is necessary to the being of the priest. He 
alone can ordain the man who possesses full ministerial 
capacity; men not so ordained may preach, or even admin- 
ister baptism, but the communities in which they serve 
*'lack participation in those privileges which depend upon 
a ministry duly authorized by Christ our L/ord,"* It 
affirms, fourthly, that without the priest so ordained, 
worship in the full spiritual Christian sense is not possi- 
ble, for on him depends "the validity of the eucharist." f 
It affirms, fifthly, that the Sacraments are the means nec- 
essary to the creation and maintenance of spiritual life. 
Baptism is "the great sacrament of our regeneration," and 
the eucharist is "our chief means of communion wnth our 
Ivord."J And these parts so hang together as to constitute 
a logical and consistent whole; the polity is a divine crea- 
tion, the very form in which God decreed religion to be 
realized in the world. The episcopate is "organically 



* lb. Preface, p. xxxviii. j lb. p. 15. % It>. p. 15; Preface, p. xxxviii; 

90 



SACERDOTALISM 

necessary to the structure of the visible Body of Christ"; 
"necessary not merely to its bene esse, but to its esse.^''* 
For witliout Christ there had been no apostles; without 
apostles, no bishops; without bishops, no priests; without 
priests, no sacraments; without sacraments, no Church; 
without the Church, no Christian religion. The theory is 
sublime and consolatory when viewed in relation to the 
Church which possesses these divine orders, prerogatives 
and graces; but the gentler spirits that hold it are moved 
with pity when they turn to those who choose to dwell in 
regions where are none of "the chartered channels" 
through which the river of life loves to flow. Yet the 
pity is soothed by the thought that even "lay-baptism" is 
valid, and we are graciously comforted by the assurance 
that it "carries with it a share in the communion of 
saints, and, much more, a right to bear the Christian 
name." But lest we be exalted above measure, we are 
reminded that lacking "a duly authorized ministry," we 
lack "in particular the precious sacrament of the Body and 
Blood" of our Lord.f The old saying was, "No bishop, no 
king"; the new saying is, "No bishop, no priest, and no 
priest, no Church"; and so the last consequence is, that 
the religion of Christ has vital or real and authoritative 
being for the people of England only as the Episcopal and 
Sacerdotal Church lives and reigns in our midst. "J 

Among the first supports which priestly 
domination received was the doctrine of Bap- 
tismal Regeneration. This doctrine placed the 
dispensing of salvation wholly and absolutely 
into the hands of the priests; for almost con- 
temporaneous with the origin of the Baptismal 
heresy the doctrine of Apostolic Succession be- 

* lb. p. 13. t lb. pp. xxxviii. — xxxix. J Rev. Principal Fairbairii, D. D. 

91 



THE FUNDAMKNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

gau to dawu. And when that doctrine became 
fully established the power of the priest was at 
once made supreme and permanent. The steps 
by which he reached this power are logical 
enough, when once the premises used are 
admitted. These steps may be traced as fol- 
lows: First, the doctrine of Baptismal Regen- 
eration, which practically made salvation im- 
possible without baptism; second, the doctrine 
of Apostolic Succession, which made baptism 
impossible without the administrator had re- 
ceived regular or legitimate ordination; and, 
third, the intense love of parents for their 
children, which made infant baptism a neces- 
sity, in order to save from the fear that infants 
are exposed to eternal damnation on account of 
original sin. Or, to put the argument in 
another form: parental love demanded the .sal- 
vation of children, but this salvation could not 
be secured without baptism; and the baptism 
could not be had without the intercession of 
the priest, and the priest could not officiate un- 
less he was properly ordained. But when once 
inducted into his priestly office, the priest prac- 
tically held the keys of authority over all 
families; for the very matter of dispensing sal- 
vation was wholly in his hands. No wonder 
fathers and mothers soon became practically 
bond slaves to a class of men who have not in- 

92 



SACERDOTAIvISM 

frequently exercised their power in a way most 
disastrous to everything that is noble in family 
life, or authorized in the Church of God. No 
wonder a large portion of the world sympa- 
thizes with Burns's characterization of them 
when he asks, — 

"Say, what are priests, those seeming godly- wise men? 
What are they, pray, but spiritual excise men?" 

It does not break the force of this statement 
to say that in some cases baptism could be ad- 
ministered by laymen. Practically this never 
amounted to anything with those who held to 
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. 

In order to find a remedy for all this we 
must again turn to Christ. In the case of the 
evil of infant baptism we found our help in 
Him; and now we must look to Him as the 
Source of our help in dealing with the evil of 
Sacerdotalism. He is our only Priest, for no 
one, save the lyord Jesus Christ, has the liberty 
of direct access unto God; no other sacrifice 
than His can possibly take away sin; it is only 
through Him that God is propitious to sinners; 
and, finally, it is only through Him that God's 
grace is conveyed to the world. Hence it will 
be seen that a proper respect for Christ's sacri- 
fice, intercession, and kingly power is the only 
effective remedy for the pretensions of Sacerdo- 

93 



THE FUNDAMENTAJv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

talism, or the domination of those "spiritnal 
excise men" who have so long lorded it over 
the conscience of the people. 

SUMMARY OF EVILS. 

The whole case against Sacerdotalism may 
be snmmed up as follows: — 

(i) It substitutes an earthly priesthood for 
a heavenly, and makes the intercession of the 
"one Mediator between God and man" depend 
upon the intervention of men. 

(2) It makes necessary the doctrine of 
Apostolic Succession, in order to make plausi- 
ble the claim of special, priestly authority. 

(3) It destroys individual responsibility by 
committing the affairs of the soul to the keep- 
ing of a class of men who are supposed to have 
special charge of soul life. 

(4) It fosters the worst kind of despotism, 
by delegating to others the right to lord it over 
the individual conscience in all matters relating 
to religion. 

(5) It places the forgiveness of sins in the 
hands of men, and thereby courts dishonesty, 
for filthy lucre's sake, in dealing with souls. 
The whole iniquity of indulgences came out of 
Sacerdotalism. 

(6) It places a strong temptation in the 
way of weak men to clandestinely use the 

94 



SACERDOTALISM 

sanctions of religion for the satisfaction of lust, 
and opens up an easy road to all kinds of 
licentiousness. 

(7) It introduces class distinctions in the 
Church, and practically abrogates the law of 
unity, which is intended to everywhere domi- 
nate God's children. The distinction between 
priest and laity finds no countenance in the 
Word of God. In Christ Jesus all conventional 
distinctions are broken down, and all are de- 
clared to be one in Him. 

A MORE EXCELLENT WAY. 

Before dismissing the subject of Sacerdo- 
talism it may be well to have before us a clear 
and comprehensive statement of this whole 
matter from another point of view; and in 
making such a statement I prefer to use the 
language of writers who are recognized as 
authority on such a question. I quote first 
from Neander: 

"The essence of the Christian community rested on this: 
that no one individual should be the chosen pre-eminent 
organ of the Holy Spirit for the guidance of the whole; but 
all were to co-operate, — each at his particular position, and 
with the gifts bestowed on him, one supplying what might 
be wanted by another,— for the advancement of the Chris- 
tian life and of the common end. In this view of it, the 
New Testament idea of the charisma becomes important; 
the charisma, by which is designated the individuality and 

95 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

diversity in the operations of the Spirit that quickens all, 
as contradistinguished from that which in all is the same; 
the pccnliar kind and manner or form of the activity of 
that common principle, so far as it is conditioned by the 
peculiar natural characteristics of each individual. Just 
as the unity of that higher Spirit must reveal itself in the 
manifoldness of charismata, so must all these peculiarities, 
quickened by the same Spirit, serve as organs, mutually 
helping each other for one common end, the edification of 
the Church." (Church History, Vol. I, Page 181.) 

The following is from a scholarly and re- 
markably candid volume, entitled ''Catholic 
Thoughts on the Church of Christ and the 
Church of England," by Frederic Myers, M. A.: 

**In the Church of Christ there is no magistracy, only a 
ministry. This difference must above all things be kept 
in mind. The Church Catholic, or any particular Church, 
being essentially a spiritual Republic, and a body in 
which no worldly distinctions are in any way even recog- 
nized, does not admit of any functionaries corresponding 
to those of any society of this world. The Church Catho- 
lic, however, has even no ministers; because, as has been 
said, it has no organization as a whole on earth — no com- 
mon will acting towards a common object. The apostles 
were the only persons who ever have had a Catholic com- 
mission: who ever were ministers of Christ emphatically, 
and as such rulers of the Church. And this they were 
because their Commission was to found the Church and 
not to represent it; to be its legislative rather than its ex- 
ecutive body; and because they were inspired with some- 
thing to reveal, and gifted with something to impart, 
which no other than they ever had; and these things 
make so great a difference between their case and that of 
all others as to render them no imitable precedents for any 
succeeding age. In this sense they had, and can have, no 

96 • 



SA^CERDOTAIvISM 

Successors. Any man now distinguished from his fellows 
jn the Church of Christ is necessarily but the officer of a 
particular Church, and he is in no way necessarily differ- 
ent from any other member of the Catholic Church beyond 
the limits of that Church. And of his office in this, the 
idea is very simple. He is characteristically only the 
Representative of its Authority and the Bxecutive of its 
Will. He has not necessarily any power to rule, or any 
authority to teach. Indeed, in a Chistian church there is 
no such thing as Rule as in a civil society, for there is no 
power in it to enforce obedience, but only to rebuke dis- 
obedience; no power to punish, but only to exclude. The 
subjects with which the Christian Church is conversant 
and its aims have the least possible to do with the exercise 
of power; most only with far subtler influences, with love 
and sympathy and mutual help. It is a brotherhood of 
worshipers; and neither with brotherhood nor with wor- 
ship has government any necessary, much less any pri- 
mary, connection. Service, not rule, is the characteristic 
of Christian honor. He is the greatest in the Church that 
serves the readiest. This is the new standard of Christ's 
gospel; this is the new spirit of Christ's commandment. 
The officers, then, of a Christian church, are simply a body 
of men who are willing to become their brethren's minis- 
ters — ^to take upon themselves additional labors and re- 
sponsibilities for their brethren's benefit which they are 
not bound otherwise than through love to perform. And 
the characteristics of a Christian minister, ideally consid- 
ered, are humility and kindness and self-denial. The 
whole worth and significance of his service is that it be 
done for the society's sake and not for his own. Having 
no interests to seek, but some to renounce; finding his 
wages mainly in his work; denying himself for the sake of 
others, and desiring not to be ministered unto but to min- 
ister; superior to his brethren only because more like his 
I/ord, and honorable only in virtue of his humbleness — 
such is a Christian minister. He is not an authoritative 
teacher. He can be only what any member of the Church 
7 97 



THB FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

may be, a reciter of a received syuiljol; an expositor, 
according to his own natural and spiritual perceptions of 
their significance, of oracles which are not necessarily any 
clearer to him than to his neighbors. In Christianity, in- 
deed, there is little to be taught; its prime solicitude is not 
knowledge but worship; and thus a Christian minister's 
office is especially simple, requiring self-denial and humil- 
ity more than any pre-eminence of intellectual attain- 
ments; a readiness to serve and to endure more than any 
ability to legislate or to rule." 

With these testimonies the case against 
Sacerdotalism may be closed. We have seen 
that it is of the same parentage as that of In- 
fant Baptism, and that both of these came from 
an erroneous conception of the Sacraments, as 
they are called in the language of ritualists. 
As Baptism chronologically stands first in the 
order of these Sacraments, we may safely con- 
clude, as we have done, that Baptismal Regen- 
eration is fundamental in all departures from 
the purity and simplicity of New Testament 
teaching wherein is set forth the faith and 
practice of the Primitive Church. 



98 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE REACTION FROM BAPTISMAL 
REGENERATION. 

THE EVIL OF INDIFFERENCE TO AUTHORITY. 

The third and last great evil, growing out of 
Baptismal Regeneration, which it is proposed 
at present to consider, is what I have called in- 
difference to authority, or carelessness as re- 
gards what our Divine lyord has certainly com- 
manded, and what His apostles just as certainly 
practiced. Attention has already been called 
to some of the passages of Scripture which 
were no doubt helpful in evolving the doctrine 
of Baptismal Regeneration. But there is still 
another passage to which the doctrine may be 
almost directly traced. I refer to John iii. 5: 
"Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of 
God." This passage has been chiefly relied 
upon, through all ages of the Church, by those 
who have regarded baptism as absolutely an 
essential condition to salvation. Hence Bap- 
tismal Regeneration has found this passage one 
of its strongest citadels of defence. But the 

passage can not be macle to do service for any 

99 
LofC. 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv E;RR0R OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

such doctrine unless it be illegitimately inter- 
preted; and this is precisely what has happened 
not only as respects this passage, but also as 
respects all other passages of the New Testa- 
ment that indicate a connection between Bap- 
tism and Remission of Sins, or salvation. 

THE MEANING OF JOHN III. 5. 

In view of the illicit use which has been 
made of John iii. 5, it may be well to examine 
briefly what our I^ord really meant by the lan- 
guage there used; and if I take up a little extra 
space in an exposition of this passage, I think I 
may claim justification on the ground that the 
passage is somewhat fundamental as regards 
the question under discussion. First of all, it 
is important to get a correct rendering of the 
Greek. Every scholar knows that a literal 
translation will give us born out of luater ar.d 
out of spirit^ instead of what we now have in 
both the Authorized and Revised Versions. 
This change helps us to 'arrive at the true 
meaning. 

Now, if we turn to Romans vi. 4, we can 
scarcely fail to understand what is meant by 
being "born out of water and out of spirit." 
Evidently what Paul means by being raised in- 
to newness of life out of a watery grave is 

equivalent to what our lyord means by being 

100 



REACTION FROM BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 

*'borii out of water and out of spirit." To be 
*'boru out of wajer" alone would not bring us 
to newness of life; but to be "born out of water 
and out of spirit" is equivalent to a death 
to sin, burial with Christ by baptism into death 
and a resurrection into newness of life. Hence 
I heartily agree with Dean Alford, that "born 
out of water" refers to baptism in water; while 
"out of spirit" indicates the vital connection 
between the Holy Spirit and the creation with- 
in us of the new life. I also agree with him 
when he adds: "All attempts to get rid of these 
two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal 
prejudices by which the views of expositors 
have been warped." 

Much light may be thrown upon this passage 
by remembering the particular standpoint of 
Nicodemus. He was undoubtedly acquainted 
with the baptism of John, which was a baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins. But 
John had said that, while he baptized in water, 
the One coming after him, vis.^ the Christ, 
would baptize in the Holy Spirit. No doubt 
the object of Jesus was to impress this testi- 
mony of John upon Nicodemus. But He does 
not do this by exchtding baptism in water, but 
by adding baptism in the Holy Spirit. In 
other words. He unites the two elements in the 
one baptism, and thereby makes baptism into 

101 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
the Holy Spirit the one baptism of which Paul 
speaks when he is enumerating the seven uni- 
ties in his letter to the Kphesians. Consequent- 
ly, one must be born, not only out of water, 
but out of spirit also; and this corresponds with 
what our Lord said in His commission to the 
apostles, viz.^ "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." And this view of the 
matter completely rescues the passage from any 
application to the dogma of Baptismal Re- 
generation, while at the same time it empha- 
sizes the importance of baptism in order to 
burial and resurrection with Christ. 

There is still a further difficulty in this 
passage which needs to be cleared up. What 
is the meaning of the phrase "kingdom of 
God"? If it means the everlasting or heavenly 
kingdom, then it would logically follow that 
none but those who are born out of water and 
out of spirit can ever enter heaven. But surely 
this is not what our Lord meant, as doubtless 
many will enter heaven who never even heard 
of baptism of any kind whatever. 

I can not now give the proof for my conclu- 
sion, but it would be easy to show from numerous 
parallel passages that the phrase "kingdom of 
God" refers to the reign of God on earth, from 
the opening of the kingdom on the day of Pen- 

102 



REACTION FROM BAPTlSMAIv REGENERATION 

tecost to the close of the Christian dispensation. 
Hence, Peter on the day of Pentecost, when the 
kingdom was first opened, told the inquiring 
Pentecostians that they must repent and be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of sins, and they should receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit; thus literalizing the 
metaphorical language of our Divine Lord, so 
that all could understand and comply with the 
terms of salvation. And if Peter's language at 
Pentecost is equivalent to our lyord's language 
to Nicodemus, then it is evident that the doc- 
trine of Baptismal Regeneration finds no stand- 
ing ground in the teaching of the Word of 
God. 

This view of the matter at once clears up 
several difficulties. Among these may be 
reckoned the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 
Some have thought that this Baptism was spe- 
cial, and was never repeated after the conversion 
of Cornelius and his household. But i Cor. 
xii:i3 stands right in the way of this conclu- 
sion. The proper translation of this passage is 
as follows: "For, in one Spirit also, were we 
all baptized into one body, etc. ' ' The Spirit in 
this case represents the element in which the 
act of Baptism takes place, but it does not ex- 
clude water as an element also. The Apostle is 
looking solely at the spiritual side and there- 

103 



THE FUNDAMP:NTAIv error of CHRISTENDOM 

fore speaks only of Baptism in tlie Spirit. If 
tlie whole case were nnder consideration then 
it would include both water and Spirit, and this 
would correspond precisely with John iii:5, 
when the latter is entirely stripped of its meta- 
phorical import. 

This view of the matter is supported by a 
correct understanding of Matt. iii:ii. A literal 
translation is as follows: 

"I, indeed, am baptizing you in water, in order to repent- 
ance; but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, 
whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize 
you in the Holy Spirit and fire." 

On the very surface of this passage there are 
at least three things apparent: 

(i) Christ, during His reign, would intro- 
duce a new element in connection with bap- 
tism. It is not said that the new element 
would dispense with the old. On the contrary 
it seems to be implied that the Baptism in the 
Holy Spirit is to be in some way added to that 
of water. The former is to be supplemental to 
the latter. Nor is it necessary to reckon with 
two distinct baptisms. The leading word is 
the same in both cases; only the noun of the 
adjunct changes. And the fact that "baptize" 
is used before both elements suggests the 
probability that the baptism was to be regarded 
as ONE while the two elements — water and 

104 



REACTION FROM BAPTISMAL RKGENERATION 

Spirit — would be associated in the "one bap- 
tism." 

(2) The baptism in water was administered 
by John, that in the Spirit, by Christ. That 
is, the spiritual element could not be of human 
origin — it must come from above. This fact 
strongly suggests a parallel between the pass- 
age under consideration and John 111:3-5. The 
birth from above may be equivalent to the bap- 
tism in the Holy Spirit. I do not say that this 
is certainly so; but I do say that there are good 
reasons for believing that if all metaphor was 
stripped from the language the two passages 
would be seen to m.ean practically the same 
thing. But however this may be, the impor- 
tant point to which special attention is directed 
still remains, viz.: the baptism in the Holy 
Spirit is Christ's work and not that of man; 
and consequently, if the two elements are to 
be regarded as belonging to the "one baptism," 
then undoubtedly the Divine element is "from 
above," and is supplied by Christ Himself; so 
that while the human agent baptizes in water, 
Christ at the same time baptizes in the Holy 
Spirit. This fact also shows how certainly the 
human and the Divine co-operate in the most 
vital part of Christianity. 

(3) A third important matter is suggested 
by the language of the text in Matt. iii:ii. 

105 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRIvSTRNDOM 

There is no such thing as "water baptism," or 
"spirit baptism." Nor are the phrases "bap- 
tism of water," or "baptism of the Holy 
Spirit" to be found anywhere in the Bible; and 
this is not only the language of Ashdod, but it 
is wholly misleading. "Baptism of \\\^ Holy 
Spirit" conveys an entirely different meaning 
from that conveyed by "baptism 2/2 the Holy 
Spirit." The former can not be found in the 
word of God; nor can the idea it conveys be 
found there. The biblical language is always 
"baptize in or with water," and "baptize in or 
with the Holy Spirit." Now anyone ought to 
see that these phrases express a very different 
idea from those to which I object. In the 
objectionable phrases, the leading terms are 
"water" and "Spirit." The "baptism of 
water" indicates that the baptism is really 
something that belongs to the w^ater or pro- 
ceeds from the water, and consequently teaches 
not only an unscriptural notion, but also ex- 
presses a wholly unphilosophical idea. The 
same is true of the phrase baptism of the Holy 
Spirit. It represents the baptism as coming 
from the Spirit instead of from Christ. But 
this is not the teaching of the New Testament. 
The truth is, the leading idea is always the 
baptism, and not the Spirit, which is only the 
element in which the baptism takes place. 

106 



REACTION FROM BAPTISMAIv REGENERATION 

It is easy to see how a misconception, such, 
as I have indicated, would have a vicious in- 
fluence on the thoughts of the religious world. 
By using such phrases as "water baptism" and 
"baptism of water" the people would soon 
come to attach little or no importance to bap- 
tism in water, for the reason that "water bap- 
tism" and "baptism f?/' water" puts the em- 
phasis in the wrong place, and consequently 
begets the notion that baptism in water may be 
dispensed with entirely, or attended to in any 
kind x)f fashion, if only the "baptism of the 
Holy Ghost" can be secured. This latter 
phrase magnifies the importance of the bap- 
tism in the Spirit, because it wholly misrepre- 
sents the facts of the case. But it is not the 
element that is the leading thought in the 
scriptural language; it is the action and that 
action is called baptism, whether the element is 
water, or spirit, or both. Hence I conclude 
that the popular phraseology on this subject is 
entirely unscriptural and misleading. There is 
really no such thing as "water baptism," or 
"spirit baptism," nor is there anything in the 
word of God that even corresponds to "baptism 
of water" or "baptism of the Holy Spirit." 
Such language only shows the confusion of 
Christendom, and serves to illustrate how easy 

107 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CIIRIvSTENDOM 

it is for even the most conscientious people 
to drift away from a pure speech. 

Having now cleared the ground, is it possible 
to determine with definite certainty the exact 
meaning of the passage under consideration? 
lyCt us see. 

Of course there are those who find only two 
instances of baptism in the Holy Spirit — at 
Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. No 
drubt these were special cases, but I doubt the 
conclusion that these are the only instances 
where the baptism in the Holy Spirit took 
place. As already suggested, in i Cor. 12:13, 
the Apostle seems to declare that the Corin- 
thians had all been baptized in one Spirit 
into one body. This baptism may not have 
been accompanied by such signs as were pres- 
ent at Pentecost and at tliQ house of Cornelius; 
but this would prove little or nothing as to the 
point in controversy. The gift of the Holy 
Spirit did not always carry with it the same 
manifestation of the Spirit. 

From Acts 19:2-6, it is evident that baptism 
in water was closely associated with the Holy 
Spirit, and may we not reasonably conclude 
that the element — Spirit — was added to bap- 
tism in water after John's baptism had wrought 
its mission? Hence when Peter told the Pen- 
tecostians to "repent and be baptized, every 

108 



REACTION FROM BAPTISMAIv REGENERATION 

one of them in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
remission of sins, and they should receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit," he was simply asking 
them to be baptized into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 
and this formula made it impossible for any- 
one to be baptized and not hear of the Holy 
Spirit. No wonder Paul asked the disciples he 
found at Bphesus, ''Into what, then, were you 
baptized?" He could not understand how 
they could have received Christian baptism and 
not hear of the Holy Spirit, since the name of 
the Holy Spirit was used in the baptismal 
formula. And Paul's reference to what John 
the Baptist said strongly suggests the baptism 
in the Spirit as one side at least of this case at 
Bphesus. 

We may conclude, therefore, that it is not 
necessary to limit the baptism in the Holy 
Spirit to two or three occasions, or even to the 
apostolic age. It seems to me to be more in 
harmony with the whole scope of the Scripture 
teaching on the subject, to regard baptism in the 
Holy Spirit as a part of every baptism,' either 
immediately associated with the baptism in 
water, or else closely following it. Nor is this 
baptism to be repeated any more than baptism 
in water is to be repeated. Indeed, if the two 
elements are to be regarded as belonging to the 

103 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

''one baptism" of which Paul speaks in Ephes- 
ians, then the modern notion of praying for 
a "rebaptism of the Holy Ghost" is entirely 
unauthorized by anything to be found in the 
word of God. 

Hence, I believe there is a sense in which it 
is proper to say that there is still a baptism in 
the Holy Spirit, though this is followed by no 
such manifestations as took place at Pentecost 
and at the house of Cornelius. In short, the 
one Baptism of which Paul speaks is a Baptism 
in two elements, viz.\ water and spirit. But 
the antecedent conditions necessary to a Scrip- 
tural Baptism must all be present before the act 
of Baptism can be worth anything whatever. 
This fact makes Baptismal Regeneration, in 
the evangelical sense of Regeneration, both ab- 
surd and impossible, and, therefore, a mere 
theological figment without either reason or 
Scripture to support it. 

Nevertheless, this doctrine has been evolved 
out of the very passage (John iii:5) to which I 
have called attention, and has been the most 
popular doctrine of the Church concerning re- 
generation from Barnabas down to our present 
day. 



110 



CHAPTER VIII. 
A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM. 

Just here it may be well to guard against a 
possible misconception of the facts of the case. 
Let no one suppose that a misunderstanding of 
the design of baptism necessarily implies that it 
has no place in the Christian system. Unfor- 
tunately this is the extreme to which some 
have gone while seeking to avoid the extreme 
of baptismal regeneration. As a matter of 
fact, baptism is founded in the deepest philos- 
ophy of the universe, and is easily defensible 
upon the ground that it is perfectly rational as 
a means to an end. It is, therefore, the ex- 
treme use of baptism which is objectionable, 
and not its proper use, as it is ordained in the 
plan of salvation. 

Doubtless Ritual holds an important place in 
the Divine government. This would seem to 
be necessary, owing to the very constitution of 
man's nature. He is not wholly a spiritual 
being. He has a body as well as a soul and 
spirit; and this body must be taken into account 
in all the affairs of the present life. This is so 
much the case that even his language has a phys- 
ical basis. This very fact constitutes one of the 

111 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

difficulties in making a revelation to bim of 
spiritual things; and in view of this fact it is 
very remarkable that spiritual tbings bave 
been brought so near to bim in the revelation 
which God has made through the Bible. The 
Divine Revealer was compelled to use the 
language which be found men were speaking; 
and yet this language was the product of an 
evolution through the ages, strongly influenced 
by purely physical needs, and also deeply con- 
taminated with sin. To make a perfect reve- 
lation through such a language, and to such a 
being as man is, was the task set before the 
Divine mind; and undoubtedly only Divine 
wisdom could possibly have performed such a 
task as has been accomplished. 

Taking into consideration all the circum- 
stances of the case it is not at all singular that 
there should be in human nature a strong ten- 
dency toward ritualism. The eye perceives 
before the ear comprehends. The eye is that 
which takes cognizance of the physical, the ear 
is that which apprehends the spiritual. Hence, 
it is perfectly philosophical that faith should 
come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of 
God. 

The antiquity of ritual is a strong proof that 
it rests upon solid ground. If we examine the 
Holy Scriptures, we shall find that it existed in 

112 



A REASONABLK VIKW OI' BAPTLSM 

different forms from tlie very earliest ages, and 
that, in many instances, at least, it had tlie 
Divine approval. As an instance, it is only 
necessary to mention the Sabbath, and the 
peculiar conditions surrounding its observance. 
However, other cases might be given under 
each of the three dispensations, namely, the 
Patriarchal, Jewish and Christian. 

But it is unnecessary to burden these pages 
by enumerating the numerous places where 
ritual can be found. It is sufficient to say that 
Baptism and the I^ord's Supper occupy the 
most prominent, if not the only place, in the 
Church of God. Evidently it was the inten- 
tion of the Divine Founder of Christianity to 
make it as free from ritual as possible, and yet 
it v/as necessary to tie the religion of Christ (so 
to speak) to at least three great outward insti- 
tutions, namely, Baptism, the I^ord's Supper 
and the lyord's day. These all represent re- 
spectively important facts, as well as stand for 
great principles. Nor is it easy to see how 
Christianity could have become a permanent 
reality in the world without some such out- 
ward institutions as those to which reference 
has been made. 

We must not, therefore, undervalue the im- 
portance of baptism simply because its true 
meaning has been perverted. The constant 

8 113 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

tendency of the human mind toward ritualism 
will easily account for the early perversion of 
the ordinance. The first step in this perver- 
sion was the confounding of the sign with that 
which was signified. The same mistake still 
underlies the doctrine of baptism, as it is prac- 
tically held by probably nineteen-twentieths of 
professed Christians. Because God made use 
of an outward ordinance, or a physical sign, 
through which to convey a blessing or signify 
that blessing, it does not follow that the bless- 
ing is imparted, ex opcre opejmto^ on that 
account. When the Israelites looked to the 
brazen serpent, it was not because there was in 
this serpent itself the power to heal them, but 
because God commanded them to do this 
thing, and the healing power came with their 
obedience to the command. Doubtless the 
selection of the brazen serpent was altogether 
appropriate, and perhaps the wisest remedy 
that could have been suggested by divine 
wisdom; for we must believe, x^d.somwg a priori^ 
that God would select the very best means 
that could be found to bring about the desired 
result; and if the siniilia similibns ciirantiir 
be true, then undoubtedly the selection of the 
brazen serpent was in harmony with a law 
of healing. But in any case it must be evi- 
dent that the real power to heal was behind the 

114 



A REAvSONABIvE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

sign or brazen serpent, and that it was used 
onl}' to signify the place wliere God would 
iiieet tlie diseased Israelites and heal them. 

Equally suggestive is the case where the 
Saviour used clay in curing the blind man. 
No one for a moment would think that the 
power to heal was in the clay; and yet the 
Saviour used clay as a means through which 
His healing power might be manifested. 
Doubtless He could have restored the sight 
of the blind man without any such method, but 
w^e must always reckon vv^ith the divine way of 
doing things, and a robust faith will accept this 
way as the wisest in any given case. 

While, therefore, it is not difBcult to see 
why baptism occupies an important place in 
the plan of salvation, we must not forget 
that it is very easy to pervert such an or- 
dinance from its legitimate purpose to one 
which degrades both the ordinance and its 
author. This is precisely what has happened 
with those who preach and practice Baptismal 
Regeneration. At the same time the facts 
stated help to explain how the ordinance of 
baptism was so decidedly perverted soon after 
the close of the apostolic ministry; and they 
help us also to understand how even many 
modern Churches still cling to a notion which 
is the parent of the most dominant evils to 

115 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

be found in the teaching and practice of modern 
Christianity, the most prominent of which evils 
is probably infant baptism. 

A misunderstanding as to what baptism 
really is, lies at the foundation of all the error 
with respect to its place in the plan of sal- 
vation. 

It may appear to some like sacrilege to 
question the propriety of the old distinction be- 
tween what are called moral and positive in- 
stitutions or commands. With the religious 
body known as Disciples, at least, this dis- 
tinction has come to be a sort of inheritance. 
In all their literature, from the first number of 
the Christian Baptist down to the last issue 
of any book or paper, advocating the return to 
apostolic Christianity, we find this distinction 
more or less insisted upon as essential to any 
correct understanding of the plan of salva- 
tion. In some instances, books and pamphlets 
are chiefly occupied with emphasizing and 
enforcing its importance, as the key which 
unlocks all the apparent difficulties connected 
with regeneration or conversion. In fact, a 
considerable library could be collected on this 
subject, and one, too, that would be highly 
prized by many faithful disciples of Jesus. 

Of course we ought not to seek to injure 
the value of all this literature, without good 

116 



A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

and sufficient cause. And I can assure the 
reader that nothing but a deep sense of obliga- 
tion to truth could induce me to call in question 
the reasoning of so many true, earnest and 
able men. Nevertheless, as my convictions 
will not permit me longer to hold to the 
popular notion, I do not hesitate to assert my 
independence of the past and proceed to give 
reasons for the hope that is within me. 

1. The distinction referred to was never 
supported by any real Scripture authority. It 
has always rested on a pure assumption. I do 
not say that the assumption is wholly arbi- 
trary, for it is freely admitted that in some 
cases there seems to be a reason for it. But a 
little reflection, I think, will enable us to see 
that in no instance is the distinction justifiable. 

2. Theologians have been very generally 
fond of this distinction, and it is from these 
the Disciples, as a people, have inherited it, 
and not from the Bible. Butler, in his * 'Analo- 
gy,'' says: ^^ Moral duties arise out of the 
nature of the case itself, prior to external com- 
mand. Positive duties do not arise out of the 
nature of the case, but from external com- 
mand." Bishop Whately is equally explicit. 
He says: ^''K positive precept concerns a thing 
that is right because it is commanded; a moral 
respects a thing commanded because it is right. 

117 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

A Jew was bound to honor his parents, and 
also to worship at Jerusalem; the former was 
commanded because it was right, and the latter 
was right because it was commanded." 

In these extracts we have a very clear state- 
ment of the distinction to which I object. Let 
us now see if the distinction itself is founded in 
any proper understanding of the divine govern- 
ment. 

How do we know that ' 'positive duties do 
not arise out of the nature of the case," but 
only from ' 'external command"? May it not 
be that our ignorance is the only thing that 
hinders a different understanding of this matter? 
Because we do not perceive the "nature of 
the case" "prior to the external command," 
does it necessarily follow that there is no fitness, 
no proper connection between duty and the 
thing commanded? I beg the reader's close 
attention just here. 

It is true that a Jew was bound to obey his 
parents, and that h« was commanded to do this 
because it was right; but is it not equally true 
that he was commanded to worship at Jerusa- 
lem because it was right also? The reason 
for this latter may not be as self-evident as the 
reason for the former, but it does not follow, 
therefore, that the latter is without reason — a 
mere arbitrary command of God. What we 

118 



A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

contend for is, that one is just as reasonable 
as the other when the difference in class is 
taken into the account. It is certainly right t?z 
itself that children should obey their parents, 
but does not the same sense of fitness underlie 
the command to the Jew to worship at Jerusa- 
lem? This city was the capital of the Jew- 
ish people. Their nationality centered at that 
point. As regards //(^<f(?, it stood related to the 
nation precisely as the parents stand related to 
their children in respect to authority. And 
in "the nature of the case," it was just as 
appropriate to select Jerusalem as the city in 
which the Jew was to w^orship as to command 
children to obey their parents. Furthermore, 
it must be remembered that the Jewish re- 
ligion was national in its character, and a cen- 
tral place to worship would appear to be essen- 
tial to the kind of worship enjoined upon the 
Jew. Hence it will be seen that the place 
selected for the temple was in harmony with 
the highest reason, and consequently Bishop 
Whately's example in no way justifies the dis- 
tinction between moral and positive law. 

Nor shall we find any better support for this 
distinction if we turn to other examples usually 
relied on. The most common illustrations are 
the prohibition in the Garden of Bden; the 
offering of Isaac by Abraham; the lifting up of 

119 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

the brazen serpent in the wilderness; the com- 
mand of God to Uzzah concerning the ark; the 
healing of Naaman by Elisha; and the ordi- 
nance of baptism. But in our judgment, not 
one of these will yield an interpretation contra- 
ry to my position when \\\q: facts are all tender- 
stood. It may be that we never will be able to 
fully comprehend the philosophy of all these 
cases, but our ignorance should not be accepted 
as conclusive that there is no philosophy at all 
in them, and that, therefore, their selection 
was a purely arbitrary matter. We are per- 
suaded that in every case precisely the right 
thing was commanded, and that it would not 
have been commanded^ had it not been right in 
itself. In other words, it was right and proper 
prior to the command, and was not made so by 
an arbitrary act of divine power. 

It may be said that in the case of Abra- 
ham offering Isaac the act was wrong in itself 
Very well, but did the command of God make it 
right? We think not. For we can not con- 
ceive how even God himself can destroy the 
distinction between right and wrong. This 
distinction is eternal, and no power in the uni- 
verse can obliterate it. Hence, for this very 
reason doubtless, Abraham was not allowed 
to take the life of his son. It was not the pur- 
pose of God that the command should be liter- 

120 



A REASONABIvE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

erally obeyed; and so I think Paul reasons when 
he makes this case typical of the offering 
of Christ. 

The old distinction between moral and posi- 
tive law is an unfortunate one. We come now 
to inquire, in what respect it is unfortunate. 

Of course any distinction that is not true 
ought not to stand, even if no evil tendency can 
be detected. Truth only is consistent with 
truth; and it is only truth that will bear the 
final test. Hence we should contend for the 
truth for its own sake, if for no other reason. 
But in the present case there are evil tendencies 
which can be overcome only by breaking down 
the distinction to which I have called atten- 
tion. We can now notice only a few of these. 

One tendency is to form a false idea of the or- 
dinance of baptism. It is assumed that baptism 
is a positive institution according to the old def- 
inition, and is, therefore, right simply because 
it is commanded^ without any antecedent re- 
lation to the purpose or end for which it is com- 
manded. It is boldly asserted that there is 
absolutely no connection whatever between the 
nature of the ordinance and the design of it, 
and that this is the very reason why it was se- 
lected as a test of our faith. 

But the truth is baptism is not simply a 
test of our faith. In some sense it may be this, 

121 



THB FUNDAMBNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

but it is more than this. Doubtless it may be 
likened to a thermometer which measures the 
heat in the room. The thermometer is not the 
heat, it only measures the heat. Baptism is 
not faith, but it may measure faith. In so far 
as this is the case it may be regarded as a test 
of faith. It tries our faith. When our faith is 
high enough to impel us to action, then we 
have the faith that saves, and this is why bap- 
tism is said to save us. It is the point on the 
thermometer which marks the degree where 
faith is strong enough to go forward and do 
exactly what God has commanded us, and this 
clearly indicates the point where salvation is 
assured. 

Nor should the ordinance be reduced to a 
mere arbitrary sign in order to define its posi- 
tion in the plan of salvation. It is more than a 
sign. It is doubtless that, but it is more than 
that. But whatever it is, it is undoubtedly 
reasonable and appropriate, and is certainly the 
wisest and best means which divine wisdom 
could select for meeting the object which that 
wisdom had in view. We must, therefore, 
regard it as an ordinance beautifully appro- 
priate, eminently proper, and thoroughly adapt- 
ed to the purposes for which it has been 
appointed. 

This view of the matter seems to increase the 

122 



A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

binding force of baptism rather than to make it 
less forcible, as some have supposed. We must, 
therefore, contend for its reasonableness, for 
this at once emphasizes its importance. 

I have heard preachers say that if God had 
commanded us to break a straw this would 
have answered just as well as to be baptized. 
Perhaps so; but God would not have command- 
ed us to do that which is not philosophically 
correct. Hence the case is not a supposable 
one. As everything in the universe has its 
proper place, and nothing else can fill that 
place, without disturbing the general equilib- 
rium, is it too much to say that God himself 
could not substitute anything for baptism with- 
out endangering the harmony of His moral 
government? And if this be true, then the im- 
portance of baptism is greatly increased rather 
than diminished by doing away with the old 
distinction between Moral and Positive institu- 
tions. If the same amount of intellectual force 
that has been expended in proving baptism an 
arbitrary command had been devoted to the es- 
tablishment of its reasonableness and philosoph- 
ical fitness, the significance and value of the 
ordinance would, in my opinion, be much 
more appreciated than they now are; and in 
view of this fact I plead for a thorough revision 
of the old definition on this subject. 

123 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

Another tendency of the error we are consid- 
ering is, to furnish weapons for the defense of 
infidelity. The chief attack of modern infidels 
on the Christian religion is from the scientific 
standpoint. This, in my judgment, is their 
last stronghold; and when fairly driven from 
this the contest will be practically ended. 

Now, while I do not deem it necessary to 
scientifically demonstrate everything connected 
with the Christian religion in order to establish 
its claim to a divine origin, it is certainly 
neither wisdom nor piety to expend our strength 
in trying to prove that some of the important 
ordinances of that religion are wholly uitscientif- 
ic. If we are not able to show the reason why 
this or that is commanded, it is surely no part 
of our duty to set up a claim that there is no 
reason in the matter, except the sovereign act 
of the divine will. And it is obviously still less 
our duty to contend that any command is 
contrary to reason and is ail the more important 
on that account. 

We have been accustomed to say that a 
miracle is something above reason, but not con- 
trary to reason. Can we not be at least this 
considerate when discussing the ordinances of 
Christianity? 

Our contention for the reasonableness of bap- 
tism will do much to overthrow infant baptism, 

124 



A RBASONABIvE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

which we have already seen is wholly unreason- 
able. The more we concede to the old notion 
that baptism is a Positive institution, and is 
wholly arbitrary in its nature, the more we 
make it impossible to educate the public mind 
against the dogma of infant baptism, which 
finds its main support in that peculiar magical 
claim which it sets up, wherein baptism be- 
comes the antidote for original sin. When we 
can once place the ordinance on rational 
grounds, then the doctrine of Baptismal Regen- 
eration will no longer be tenable, and con- 
sequently infant baptism will have its main 
prop taken from under it; for no matter what 
may be said to the contrary, it is a fact, which 
cannot be successfully refuted, that, without 
the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, infant 
baptism has really no locics standi. 

In this connection, it is worth while to re- 
mark that it would be easy to show by abun- 
dant quotations that every argument which has 
been used to support infant baptism has been 
refuted by its most determined advocates. In- 
deed, it is quite possible to overthrow the 
dogma from every point of view by arguments 
supplied by Pedobaptists themselves while 
attempting to find the most favorable ground 
for its support. Surely a practice which is 
constantly discounted by its best friends cannot 

125 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OK CHRIvSTENDOM 

strongly appeal to the faith of the Christian 
world unless the Christian world is swayed by 
a blind superstition, or, at least, a powerful 
tradition which refuses to listen to the voice of 
either reason or revelation. Nevertheless, the 
practice still continues, and this fact shows 
conclusively that the traditions on which it is 
founded cannot easily be swept away, and for 
the reason that they appeal to the deepest and 
most permanent affections of human nature, 
viz., the affections growing out of the relation 
between parents and their children. 

MAKING TOO LITTLE OF BAPTISM. 

As already intimated, the reaction against 
the extreme of sacramental grace has led to an- 
other extreme equally dangerous, if not to be 
dreaded even more than the doctrine of Baptis- 
mal Regeneration. This extreme shows itself 
in making little or nothing of baptism what- 
ever. It practically strips the ordinance of all 
legitimate significance, and makes it a cold, 
formal performance, with nothing to recom- 
mend it in any way as a practical and impor- 
tant factor in the plan of salvation. 

This evil is widespread, for it cannot be 
denied that many earnest men and women, 
who cannot possibly believe in the doctrine of 

126 



A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

Baptismal Regeneration, have gone to another 
extreme in making baptism practically of no 
importance whatever, by reducing it to a mere 
bodily act. That extremes beget extremes is 
the testimony of all history. When a pendu- 
lum is lifted considerably above the point of 
oscillation on one side, and is then let fall, it is 
sure to swing to the opposite extreme on the 
other side. This is precisely what has hap- 
pened with respect to the matter of baptism. 
Baptismal Regeneration expresses one extreme, 
while indifference to baptism expresses the 
other extreme. The advocates of the first, 
making too much of baptism, have driven the 
anti-ritualists into the extreme of making too 
little of baptism. Hence, it is now lamentably 
true that those who hold to the doctrine of 
what is called evangelical regeneration regard 
baptism as in no sense connected with salva- 
tion. 

But there can be no doubt about the fact 
that this extreme is not much better than the 
other extreme, from which this one is evidently 
a rebound. But neither of these extremes can 
be accepted as in harmony with what Scripture 
saith; for while Baptismal Regeneration cannot 
possibly be true (if regeneration is limited to 
the work of the Holy Spirit in begetting in us 
the new life), it is equally certain that indiffer- 

127 



THE FUNDAMENTAIy ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

ence to baptism cannot be in accordance with 
the will of God when we come to consider the 
obligations involved in all that belongs to the 
salvation of the sinner. Snch passages as I 
have already quoted, where baptism is men- 
tioned, must mean something; and in our judg- 
ment the true meaning cannot be determined 
by rushing from one extreme to another. In 
the Scriptures salvation is ascribed to several 
things. Among these may be mentioned grace, 
faith, calling on the name of the Lord, hope, 
the life of Christ, the washing of regeneration, 
and baptism. Peter says, ''^Baptism doth also 
now save tis^^\ and while that statement stands 
unchallenged in the Word of God, no one can 
truthfully say that baptism does not save us in 
any sense. Surely it does not save us in the 
same sense as grace saves us, or as faith saves 
us, or as any of the other means to which sal- 
vation is ascribed saves us; but that it does 
save us in some sense is just as certain as that 
the Word of God is true. 

And now, regarding the two extremes to 
which attention has been called, it is my delib- 
erate judgment that our safety lies between 
them. At the same time we cannot fail to 
notice that the evil of indifference to baptism 
has practically come out of Baptismal Regener- 
ation. Can safety be found in a middle course? 

128 



A REASONABLE VIEW OF BAPTISM 

I feel confident that it can, and I shall now 
briefly indicate what the middle conrse is, 
which will meet all the conditions of the case. 



129 



CHAPTER IX. 
HOW TO SOLVE THE QUESTION. 

It is believed that a practical solution of this 
difficult problem may be found in at least three 
directions. In the first place, we may limit 
regeneration to the antecedent work of the 
Holy Spirit through the Gospel, in producing 
faith and begetting in us the new life, and then 
allow that baptism may take the place of a cov- 
enant, or SacramoitiDii^ in which the believer 
takes upon himself the obligations of the 
Divine government, while at the same time he 
receives the assurance of pardon by relying 
upon the testimony, "He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved.'' In the second place, 
the term ''regeneration" may be regarded as 
including everything belonging to the new 
birth, or the return of the sinner to God; and 
in this case baptism would be properly the coii- 
sunnnafing act of all that is involved in the 
change, or the decisive act by which the believ- 
ing penitent definitely takes up his cross to fol- 
low Christ. This view would seem to be in 
harmony with Peter's teaching (i Peter 3:21) 
that baptism is the "answer (Greek, drcisioN^) 
of a good conscience towards God." Hence it 

liO 



HOW TO SOIvVB THE QUESTION 

is the act by which the penitent believer defi- 
nitely and fully accepts Christ and takes his 
position on the Lord's side. Or, in the third 
place, we need not concern ourselves with any 
special theory oi either regeneration or baptism, 
but simply insist upon all that the Lord has 
commanded, without formulating anything 
whatever. 

This last is, in my judgment, the safest 
course to pursue, and consequently this is the 
course I would most earnestly recommend in 
order to Christian union. From almost the 
verv beo^inniuQr of the Christian era down to the 
present time speculations and theories with re- 
gard to baptism have been a perpetual source 
of discord and strife, and. even now there really 
seems little hope of peace while we are en- 
gaged in adding to or taking from the Word of 
God. In. my judgment, it is quite useless to 
think seriously of Christian union until the 
baptismal question is solved; and it seems to 
me that no satisfactory solution will be reached 
unless we are willing to take a practical view 
of the whole matter by simply following the 
plain teaching of the Scriptures. 

But I am thankful there is a sure way to 
peace, and this is by recognizing the supreme 
authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in this mat- 
ter as in all other things. He has evidently 

131 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

spoken definitely upon the baptismal question. 
There can be no doubt about the fact that he 
commanded it. Indeed, he himself submitted 
to baptism in order that he might fulfill all 
righteousness, or ratify every Divine institu- 
tion. Ought we not to be as loyal to him as 
he was to his Father? Surely if we call him 
Lord, Lord, we ought to do the things which 
be says. And if, when he tells us to be bap- 
tized, we willingly submit to the ordinance, it 
does not matter much whether we understand 
its whole meaning or not. When the Israelites 
were told to look to the brazen serpent and be 
healed, it is by no means certain that any of 
them understood the philosophy of the Lord's 
appointment; but all the same, both safety and 
loyalty required implicit obedience to what had 
been divinely commanded. 

No one supposes that Naaman understood 
the secret of Divine healing when, in obedience 
to the commandment of Klisha, he di]Dped 
seven times in the River Jordan; and yet he 
could not have been healed had he not done 
what the prophet told him to do. Is not this, 
after all, the best way to treat the question of 
baptism? The Lord has commanded it, and 
his apostles everywhere practiced it. Is not 
this a sufficient reason why we should attend to 



132 



HOW TO SOIvVB THE QUESTION 

it as soon as we heartily believe in the L^ord 
Jesns Christ? 

Surely there is no need for hair-splitting on 
this question any more than other questions 
which have furnished such a battle-ground for 
Christians of all ages. lyoyalty is what our 
Divine King wants, and this can only be given 
to him by a hearty submission to his will when- 
ever and wherever that will is made known. 
This, I believe, is the only sure solution of the 
Baptismal question; and as this question lies at 
the very basis of all feasible plans for perma- 
nent Christian union, I most earnestly hope 
that all who love our Lord and Master, and 
would surrender everything in order to honor 
him, will from this day forward determine, by 
the help of God, to be true to Christ's com- 
mandments, even though this should involve 
submission to the Divine ordinance of believers' 
baptism. 

SUMMING UP THE CASE. 

From the foregoing it will be seen that the 
extreme reaction from Baptismal Regeneration 
has produced many evils. Indeed, what we 
have called Indifferentism has been a prolific 
source of apostasy from the faith and practice 
of the Primitive Church. A few of the evil 

133 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

consequences may be enumerated as follows: 
(i) Indifferentism has opened the door for 
nearly all kinds of neglect. 

(2) It discounts the Lord's Supper as well 
as baptism. The two ordinances must stand or 
fall together. Indifference to one necessarily 
begets indifference to the other. 

(3) It gives license to a false exegesis by 
taking liberties with the 'Word of God. It 
leaves out what is clearly commanded, and sub- 
stitutes what is just as clearly not commanded. 
It teaches that salvation is by faith only, and 
suppresses the word "baptism" whenever it is 
necessary to do so in order to protest against 
any association of baptism with remission of 
sins. 

(4) It confounds regeneration and forgive- 
ness of sins, and assumes that when salvation 
is spoken of in the Word of God it always nec- 
essarily refers to the work of grace on the 
heart; whereas the word salvation is used in 
several senses in the New Testament. 

(5) It makes the plea for Scriptural baptism 
practically useless; for if baptism has no im- 
portant significance, and is in no way connected 
with salvation, it certainly makes little or no 
difference when or how it is administered. If 
it really amounts to nothing, it is evident that 
very few will be concerned whether it is admin- 

134 



HOW TO SOLVE THE QUESTION 

istered in infancy or to believers, or whether by 
sprinkling or immersion. But the moment 
baptism is restored to its rightful place, that 
moment will the proper subject and action be- 
come exceedingly important. 

(6) It destroys one of the most efficient 
practical helps in evangelistic work. What- 
ever may be said of baptism on other grounds, 
it cannot be doubted that it is a most impor- 
tant instrumentality in bringing the believer to 
definite decision. In dealing with earnest in- 
quirers we are sure to reach a point where some 
decided act is necessary to fix the position of 
those who have given their hearts to the lyord. 
Nothing can take the place of baptism in meet- 
ing this emergency. In our judgment, modern 
evangelism has lost very much by the indiffer- 
ence to baptism which has come out of the ex- 
treme reaction from Baptismal Regeneration. 

(7) Finally, it cultivates disloyalty to Christ. 
If we can be indifferent to his command with 
respect to baptism, we may be equally indiffer- 
ent to all his other commands. Who shall 
elect which of our Lord's commands may be 
neglected with impunity? And yet when we 
begin to talk about non-essentials among those 
things which he has unquestionably authorized, 
we at once begin to talk about disloyalty to 
Him who has all authority in heaven and in 

135 



THE) FUNDAME^NTAIy ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

earth. No doubt Baptismal Regeneration is a 
dangerous doctrine, but its opposite extreme, 
indifference to baptism, is equally dangerous. 
In our judgment, the only safety is the middle 
ground which I have advocated in this chapter. 

DANGER OK BEING MISUNDERSTOOD. 

However, I am not unmindful of the danger 
to which I am exposing myself by choosing the 
middle ground between two extremes. I know 
how difficult it is to satisfy extremists unless 
we go the whole length of their position. 
Hence it is quite probable that what I have 
said against Baptismal Regeneration wnll re- 
ceive the condemnation of those who make too 
much of baptism, and it is equally probable 
that what I have said in favor of the Scriptural 
doctrine of a connection between baptism and 
remission of sins will receive the condemnation 
of those who make too little of baptism. In- 
deed, it is quite probable that these last will 
charge me v/ith favoring the notion of Baptis- 
mal Regeneration, notwithstanding the fact 
that my position necessarily tears up, root and 
branch, that pernicious doctrine, and practi- 
cally annihilates the only ground upon which 
it can possibly rest. And it seems to me that 
this ought to be clear to the vision of even 
those who are so blind that they will not see. 

136 



HOW TO SOLVE THE QUESTION 

My position makes a change of mind, a change 
of heart, and a change of life, indispensable 
prereqnisites of baptism; and consequently, if 
regeneration is limited to the work of the Holy 
Spirit in begetting the new life within us, 
then, on the grounds of my advocacy, Baptis- 
mal Regeneration is simply impossible, for all 
I care to claim for baptism necessarily follows 
what is claimed for regeneration in the popular 
understanding of that term. This position has 
legitimate regard for both the antecedents and 
consequents of baptism, refusing alike to place 
too much or too little value upon the ordinance. 



137 



CHAPTER X; 

MODERN TESTIMONIES CONCERNING 
THE IMPORTANCE OF BAPTISM. 

It is a significant fact that some of tlie ablest 
theologians of modern times, while rejecting 
the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration, have at 
the same time maintained with great vigor the 
connection of baptism with salvation. From 
three of these writers quotations are subjoined. 
The views of Alexander Campbell on this ques- 
tion have often been sadly perverted by those 
who were not able to controvert them from a 
Scriptural point of view. Nevertheless, taking 
Regeneration, in the popular currency of the 
word, Mr. Campbell has opposed Baptismal 
Regeneration with all the power his pen and 
tongue could command. He has persistently 
and with great ability contended that without 
the preliminary conditions involved in the pop- 
ular notion of Regeneration, baptism is really 
worth nothing at all. But with these prerequi- 
sites baptism is the consummating act of the 
sinner's return to God. The following extract 
ought to be conclusive as regards this matter: 

"Baptism is, therefore, no work of law, no moral duty, 
no moral righteousness, but a simple putting on of Christ 

138 



MODERN TRSTIMONIKS 

and placing ourselves wholly in his hand and under his 
guidance. It is an open, sensible, voluntary expression 
of our faith in Christ, a visible embodiment of faith, to 
which, as being thus perfected, the promise of remission 
of sins is divinely annexed. In one word, it is faith per- 
fected. Hence, when Paul exegetically develops its bless- 
ings, he says, 'But you are washed, but you are sanctified, 
but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the Spirit of our Lord.' Thus, justification, sanctification 
and adoption — the three most precious gifts of the Gospel 
— are evangelically connected with faith in the Lord Jesus 
and baptism into his death. 

'•The immediate baptism of the first converts, after faith, 
is satisfactorily explained in this view of it: three thou- 
sand in one day believed and were baptized. The jailer 
and his family were enlightened, believed, and were bap- 
tized the same hour of the night. Paul himself, so soon 
as he had recovered from the influence of the supernatural 
brightness which deprived him of sight, and before he had 
eaten or drunk anything, was commanded, without further 
delay, to be forthwith baptized. 'And he arose and was 
baptized.' Baptism, with them, was the perfecting, or 
confession, of their faith. The Ethiopian eunuch, on his 
journey in the desert, is as striking an example of this as 
are the cases named. It was 'putting on Christ' as their 
righteousness. 

"Baptism, without faith, is of no value whatever; for, in 
truth, baptism is but the actual and symbolic profession of 
faith. It is its legitimate embodiment and consummation. 
And whatever virtue there is in it, or connected with it, is 
but the virtue of faith in the blood of Christ applied to the 
conscience and to the heart. The burial in water is a 
burial with Christ and in Christ. 'For in him shall all the 
seed of Israel,' the believing children of Abraham, 'be jus- 
tified,' and in him, 'and not in themselves, shall they 
glory.' It is, then, the sensible and experimental deliver- 
ance from both the guilt and the pollution of sin; and for 

this reason, or in this view of it, believing penitents, when 

139 



The fundamentaiv error of chrIvSTendom 

inquiring what tJicy should do, were uniformly commanded 
by the ambassadors of Christ to be 'baptized for the remis- 
sion of sins,' as God's own way, under the New Institu- 
tion, of receiving sinners into favor, through the death, 
burial and resurrection of his Son, into whose name espe- 
cially, as well as by whose mediatorial authority, they 
were commanded to be, on confession, buried in baptism. 
"Salvation, in the aggregate, is all of grace; and all the 
parts of it are, consequently, gracious. Nor do we, in 
truth, in obeying the Gospel, or in being buried in bap- 
tism, make void either law or Gospel, but establish and 
confirm both." — Christian Baptist, pages 28^, 28J. 

The main objection to these views should be 
made, in our judgment, against the assumption 
that baptism is no "moral duty." Mr. Camp- 
bell recognized the old distinction between Pos- 
itive and Moral law, and hence it was easy for 
him to regard baptism as simply a Positive in- 
stitution without any moral significance in it, 
per se. In this I think he was wrong, and in 
so far, I think his assumptions weaken his 
otherwise splendid argument. Nevertheless, 
the extract quoted not only vindicates Mr. 
Campbell from the taint of Baptismal Regener- 
ation, but it also shows conclusively the impor- 
tance of Christian baptism from a Scriptural 
point of view. 

The next witness to be heard is the Rev. 
Joseph Agar Beet. In his work on Baptism, 
already quoted in another part of this volume, 
Dr. Beet gives the following emphatic testi- 

140 



MODERN TESTIMONIES 

mony to the importance of the ordinance. He 
says: 

"In the last words of Christ recorded in the First Gos- 
pel, words spoken apparently only to the eleven apostles, 
we have the formal appointment of baptism as an abiding 
rite of the Church: '■Go therefore and make disciples of all 
the nations, baptizing them.'' This does not mean, accord- 
ing to the more probable reading, that baptism was to be 
the method of making disciples, but simply that while 
gathering learners for the school of Christ the apostles 
were to baptize them, and also to teach them whatever 
Christ had commanded. The accompanying promise pro- 
claims clearly that the rite was designed to continue to 
the end of the world. 

"With these words of Christ, those recorded in Mark 
16:16 agree so completely that it is almost needless to in- 
quire whether they originally formed part of the Second 
Gospel. By solemnly ordaining baptism our Ivord made it 
obligatory on all who seek his favor, and thus made it a con- 
dition of salvation. For we cannot enjoy his smile while 
we refuse to obey his express command. We therefore do 
not wonder to find that in this passage salvation is prom- 
ised only to those who both believe the Gospel and con- 
fess their faith by receiving baptism: '^He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved.'' The absolute rigor of the 
second condition is somewhat softened by its absence from 
the latter clause, 'He that disbelieveth shall be cojidemned.^ 
In view of this command, thousands in all ages and coun- 
tries, seeking salvation, have received the sacred rite at 
great cost and peril. They have dared thus to confess 
Christ in joyful confidence that he will confess them be- 
fore his Father in heaven. 

"Very humbly and reverently we now ask, 'Why did 
Christ, in full view of the tremendous loss and peril it 
would in many cases involve, require this formal confes- 
sion? Why did he, in a spiritual religion, ordain an out- 

141 



THK FUNDAMBNTAI, BRROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

ward rite as a condition of salvation?' A partial answer is 
not far to seek. Christ ordained and required the outward 
rite of baptism in order that Christianity might assume 
visible form before men and present to the world a united 
front, and in order that his servants might recognize each 
other, and thus be able to stand shoulder to shoulder in 
the great conflict, strengthened by mutual counsel and en- 
couragement. For this end he required his servants to 
confess him, and ordained baptism as a specific mode of 
confession. 

"Similarly, among other reasons, Christ ordained the 
lyord's Supper, the one recurrent rite of his Church, in 
order to maintain in it unity, and the strength of unity. 

".The above exposition will shed light upon, and receive 
support from, all other references to baptism in the New 
Testament. 

"We understand now the startling exhortation of Ana- 
nias to Saul of Tarsus recorded in Acts 22:16: ^ Arise and 
baptize thyself and wash away thy sins.'' These strong 
words evidently mean, 'Remove the stain of thy sins by 
the water of baptism.' Ananias knew that Christ had ex- 
pressly ordained and commanded the rite, and had thus 
made it a condition of his favor and of the salvation he 
proclaimed. Therefore, for the repentant persecutor, there 
was no forgiveness and purification except by formal con- 
fession of Christ in baptism. Now, to our thought, a con- 
dition performed in order to attain a result dependent 
upon it is a means to that end. Consequently, Ananias 
could speak, and in this passage does speak, of baptism as 
a means of salvation. 

"The strange occurrence here of the middle voice, bap- 
tize thyself^ reminds us that in his baptism Saul was him- 
self the most conspicuous actor. Somewhat similar, but 
without any reference to baptism, the persons addressed 
being already baptized, are St. Paul's words in 2 Corinth- 
ians 7:1: '■Let us cleanse ourselves.^ So 1 John 3:3: 'He 
that hath this hope in him purifieth himself.' By faith we 

claim the purity which, through the death of Christ, the 

142 



MODERN TESTIMONIES 

Spirit of God works in those who believe. For faith is the 
condition on which that purity is given. Therefore, in 
this correct sense, we are exhorted to purify ourselves. 

"The passage just expounded sheds light upon Titus 3:5. 
lyong after his own baptism at Damascus, St. Paul wrote 
to this Gentile convert, ^God saved us by means of the 
laver (or batJi) of the New Birth.' And we have no need 
to deny a reference here to the rite of baplism. The words 
which follow, U^eiiewing by the Holy Spij^ii^^ remind us 
that these persons were born of water and Spirit. 

"These last words are from the lips of Christ speaking 
to Nicodemus, as recorded in John 3:5. And they are 
easily explained. This member of the Sanhedrim, a Phar- 
isee, and apparently (see verse 4) an old man, shrank from 
the public confession involved in the water of baptism. 
But in these words the teacher sent from God reminds him 
that the New Birth wrought by the Spirit, without which 
none can see the kingdom of God, is only for those who 
confess Christ in his appointed way, that even for Nicode- 
mus there was no way into the kingdom except through 
the gate of baptism. The water is mentioned first as that 
which presented to Nicodemus the chief obstacle to salva- 
tion. It is mentioned only once, while the Spirit occurs 
in verses 5-8 three times, because he is the active Personal 
Agent, whereas baptism is only a condition of the New 
Birth. 

"In complete harmony with Mark 16:16 are two other 
well-known references to baptism. In Galatians 3:26, St. 
Paul declares that his readers are all sons of God through 
faith, and at once supports his words by saying that by 
their baptism, which he assumes all to have received, they 
have put on Christ, and therefore, like him, are sons of 
God. He thus links together baptism and (see chapter 4:5) 
adoption into the family of God. But the baptism, referred 
to is, as the order of the verses proves, a confession of per- 
sonal faith. This connection of faith and baptism is 
equally conspicuous in Colossians 2:12, where the apostle 

teaches that they who have been 'buried with Christ in 

143 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

baptism' have also been 'raised together with him by- 
means of their faith in the energy of God who raised him 
from the dead.' Similar teaching in Romans 6:4: 'We 
were buried with him by means of baptism for death.' 

"In Acts 10:47, 48 is recorded the baptism of some who 
had already received the Holy Spirit. This proves that 
the outward rite was needful even for those who had indis- 
putably obtained inward spiritual life. 

"In 2 Corinthians 12:13 we read: 'In one Spirit we all 
were baptized into one body, . . . and all were made 
to drink one Spirit.' This refers probably to baptism by 
water. For we here have no suggestion of any other than 
the ordinary meaning of the word baptize. vSt. Paul is 
speaking of the Church which is the body of Christ, and 
of the Holy Spirit., who is its animating principle. By 
baptism his readers entered the Church, and were thus 
united to the body of Christ. And by faith, of which their 
baptism was a confession, they obtained (Galatians 3:2) 
the gift of the Spirit. Consequently, to St. Paul's thought, 
the outward condition, and the inward Source, of the new 
life w^ere closely associated: 'In one Spirit they were bap- 
tized into one body.' Similarly in John 3:5 we have a 
birth 'of water and Spirit.' So in Acts 2:38 we read: 'Re- 
pent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Spirit.' On the other hand, St. Paul never 
uses the phrase, 'Baptize with the Holy Spirit,' found in 
Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5. If 
our exposition be correct, we have in 1 Corinthians 12:13 a 
definite reference to baptism as the outward and visible 
gate into the Church and into the company of those sav- 
ingly joined to each other and to Christ." 

The Rev. F. W. Robertson, of Brighton, 
Kngland, was jDerhaps the greatest preacher of 
the 19th Century, if not, indeed, the greatest 

144 



MODERN TESTIMONIES 

in tlie history of the Church. He was what is 
known in England as an evangelical clergy- 
man, and his sermon on Baptism is an effort to 
steer between the two extremes of Baptismal 
Regeneration, on one hand, and the non-essen- 
tiality of baptism, on the other. He has cer- 
tainly given us a striking and impressive state- 
ment of the case though his position is, in 
some respects, open to criticism. He says: 

"If baptism is only the public recognition and symbol of 
a fact, is not baptism degraded and made superfluous? 

"Baptism is given as a something to rest upon; nay, as a 
something without which redemption would soon become 
unreal — which converts a doctrine into a reality — which 
realizes visibly what is invisible. 

"For our nature is such that immaterial truths are un- 
real to us until they are embodied in material form. Form 
almost gives them reality and being. For instance, time 
is an eternal fact. But time only exists to our conceptions 
as an actuality by measurements of materialism. When 
God created the sun and moon and stars to serve for 
'signs and for seasons, and for days and years,' he was 
actually, so far as man was concerned, creating time. Our 
minds would be only floating in an eternal Now, if it were 
not for symbolical successions which represent the pro- 
cesses of thought. The clock in the house is almost a 
fresh creation. It realizes. The gliding heavens, and the 
seasons, and the ticking clock — what is time to us without 
them? Nothing. 

"God's character, again, nay, God himself, to us would 
be nothing if it were not for the Creation, which is the 
great symbol and sacrament of his presence. If there were 
no light, no sunshine, no sea, no national and domestic 
life, no material witness of his being, God would be to us 
10 14S 



THK rUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRIvSTP^NDOM 

as good as lost. The Creation ^/z'^?^ lis God: forever real 
in himself, by Creation be becomes a fact to lis. 

"It is in virtue, again, of this necessity in man for an 
outward symbol to realize an invisible idea, that a bit of 
torn and blackened rag hanging from a fortress, or the 
taffrail of a ship, is a kind of life to iron-hearted men. 
Why is it that in the heat of battle there is one spot where 
the sabres flash most rapidly, and the pistols' ring is 
quicker, and men and officers close in most densely, and 
all are gathered round one man, round whose body that 
tattered silk is wound, and held with the tenacity of a 
death-struggle? Are they only children fighting for a bit 
of rag? That flag is everything to them: their regiment, 
their country, their honor, their life; yet it is 07ily a sym- 
bol. Are symbols nothing? 

"In the same way, baptism is a fact for man to rest 
upon; a doctrine realized to flesh and blood; a something 
in eternity which has no place in time brought down to 
such time expressions as 'then and there.' 

"Baptism is seen to be no mere superfluity when you 
remember that it is an authoritative symbol. Draw the 
distinction between an arbitrary symbol and an authorita- 
tive one — for this difference is everything. 

"I take once again the illustration of the coronation act. 
Coronation places the crown on the brow of one who is 
sovereign. It does not make the fact, it witnesses it. Is 
coronation therefore nothing? An arbitrary symbolical 
act agreed on by a few friends of the sovereign would be 
nothing; but an act which is the solemn ratification of a 
country is everything. It realizes a fact scarcely till then 
felt to be real. Yet the fact was fact before — otherwise the 
coronation would be invalid. Even when the third Wil- 
liam was crowned, there was a symbol of a previous fact — 
the nation's decree that he should be king; and accord- 
ingly, ever after, all is dated back to that. You talk of 
crown-prerogatives. You say in your loyalty you 'would 
bow to the crown, though it hung upon a bush.' Yet it is 

140 



MODERN TESTIMONIEvS 

only a symbol! You only say it 'in a figure.' But that 
figure contains within it the royalty of England. 

"In a figure the Bible speaks of baj^tism as you speak of 
coronation, as identical with that which it proclaims. It 
calls it regeneration. It says baptism saves. A grand fig- 
ure, because it rests upon eternal fact. Call you that noth- 
ing? 

"We look to the Bible to corroborate this. In the Acts 
of the Apostles Cornelius is baptized. On what grounds? 
To manufacture him into a child of God, or because he 
was the child of God? Did his baptism create the fact, or 
was the fact prior to his baptism, and the ground on which 
his baptism was valid? The history is this: St. Peter 
could not believe that a Gentile could be a child of God. 
But miraculous phenomena manifested to his astonish- 
ment that this Gentile actually zuas God's child, where- 
upon the argument of Peter was very natural. Pie has the 
Spirit, therefore baptism is superfluous. Nay, he has the 
Spirit, therefore give him the symbol of the Spirit. Let it 
be revealed to others what he is. He is heir to the inher- 
itance, therefore give him the title-deeds. He is of royal 
lineage — put the crown upon his head. He is a child of 
God — baptize him. 'Who shall forbid water, seeing these 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' 

"One illustration more from the marriage ceremony, and 
I select this for two reasons: because it is the type in 
Scripture of the union between Christ and his Church, and 
because the Church of Rome has called it a sacrament. 

"A deep truth is in that error. Rome calls it a sacra- 
ment, because it is the authoritative symbol of an invisible 
fact. That invisible fact is the agreement of two human 
beings to be one. We deny it to be a sacrament, because, 
though it is the symbol of an invisible fact, it is not the 
symbol of a spiritual fact, nor an eternal fact; no spiritual 
truth, but only a changeful human covenant. 

"Now observe the difference between an arbitrary or 
conventional, and an authoritative ceremony of marriage 
union. There are conventional acknowledgments of that 

147 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

agreement, ceremonies peculiar to certain districts, private 
pledges, betrothals. In the sight of God those are valid; 
they cannot be lightly broken without sin. You cannot in 
the courts of heaven distinguish betM^een an oath to God 
and a word pledged to man. He said, 'Let your yea be 
yea, and your nay, nay.' vSucli an engagement cannot be 
infringed without penalty — the penalty of frivolized hearts, 
and that habit of changefulness of attachment which is 
the worst of penalties. But now, additional to that, will 
any one say that the marriage ceremony is superfluous — 
that the ring he gives his wife is nothing? It is every- 
thing. It is the authoritative ratification by a country and 
before God of that which before was for all purposes of 
earth unreal. Authoritative — therein lies the difference. 
Just in that authoritativeness lies the question whether 
the ceremony is nothing or everything. 

"And yet, remember, the ceremony itself does not pre- 
tend to create the fact. It only claims to realize the fact. 
It admits the fact as existing previously. It bases itself 
upon a fact. Forasmuch as two persons have consented 
together, and forasmuch as a token and pledge of that in 
the shape of a ring has been given, therefore, only there- 
fore, the appointed minister p7''0U07C7ices that they are what 
betrothal had made them already in the sight of God. 

"Exactly so, the authoritativeness is the all in all which 
converts baptism from a mere ceremony into a sacrament. 
Baptism is not merely a conventional arrangement, ex- 
ceedingly convenient, agreed on by men to remind them- 
selves and one another that they are God's children, but 
valid as a legal, eternal truth, a condensed, embodied fact. 

"Is this making baptism nothing? I should rather say 
baptism is everything. Baptism saves us." 



148 



CHAPTER XI. 
WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES? 

Before concluding this discussion it may be 
well to indicate a little more specifically just 
what the Scriptures seem to teach with respect 
to the design of baptism. Undoubtedly the 
Scriptures say much about baptism, and we 
cannot believe that the Holy Spirit has used 
words without any significance. It is, there- 
fore, important from every point of view to 
have a clear conception of the meaning of one 
of the leading words in the great Commission 
which Christ gave to his apostles, and under 
which they were to evangelize and save the 
nations. 

That baptism is in some sense a saving ordi- 
nance seems to be clear from not only the 
teachings of the Scriptures, but also from the 
practice of the apostles. I am not unmindful 
that this view is denied by some who teach 
that baptism was intended for the Jews only, 
but as regards the Gentiles they were left en- 
tirely free to be baptized or not as they might 
prefer. In support of this position we are re- 
ferred to Paul's statement in i Cor. 1:17. It is 
assumed that this passage proves that as Paul 

149 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

was the apostle of the Gentiles, baptism was no 
part of the commission under which he acted. 
Let us therefore carefully look at this whole 
matter, as it is believed not a few justify their 
neglect of baptism on the grounds suggested by 
Paul's case. The passage reads as follows: 

"For Christ did not send me [only] to bap- 
tize, but [also] to declare the joyful message." 

This passage has been made to run the whole 
gauntlet of the baptismal controversy. Can we 
know certainly just what the apostle means? 
Let us carefully consider the facts. 

(i) The commission which Christ gave to 
his apostles just before his ascension, and which 
includes the ordinance of baptism, was unques- 
tionably intended for all who should afterward 
preach the Gospel, as well as for all who should 
hear it. The commission comprehends the 
whole world — all nations — and ever}^ creature. 
Paul did not receive a different commission 
from this. He was simply appointed for a 
special work under this commission, and for 
this he received a special call. In this special 
call he was told what work was intended for 
him to do, but the manner of performing this 
work is not even intimated. He was to open 
the eyes of the Gentiles, and turn them from 
darkness to light, etc., etc., but he was not 
told how this was to be done. But Paul very 

150 



WHAT vSAITII THIv vSCRIPTURES 

well understood that the manner of doing it 
was in harmony with the instructions which 
Christ had before given to his apostles, for in 
this same letter to the Corinthians (15:1, rt al.) 
he shows that the means which were to be used 
in the performance of his work was the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, and this Gospel in its facts, 
commands and promises was embodied in the 
o:reat Commission which included the ordinance 
of baptism. 

(2) If Paul had no commission to baptize, 
then he clearly transcended his authority, for 
he himself tells us that he did baptize (i Cor. 
1:15, 16); and let it be observed that these are 
not necessarily the only persons he baptized 
during his ministry. He is simply speaking of 
the Christians at Corinth. He might have 
baptized hundreds at other places, and doubt- 
less he did baptize many. Paul thanks God 
that he did not baptize many of the Corinthian 
Church, and he immediately gives the reason 
for it. He does not say it is because he had 
received no commission to baptize, but it was 
because not many were able to say that they 
were baptized into the name of Paul, as he did 
not baptize many. He was simply glad that 
he had avoided giving an excuse to the parti- 
sans of Corinth, who were following men rather 
than Christ. And this fact alone shows the im- 

151 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

portaiice of baptism, since it distinctly bound 
those wlio were baptized into a name to accept 
the Leadership of that name. 

(3) Let it be observed that the whole argu- 
ment of the apostle clearly shows that all these 
Corinthians had been baptized by some one. 
For if this were not the case he would not have 
made the reference he did to their baptism: 
"Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" 
Evidently he does not question the fact of their 
baptism. Indeed, it is upon the assumption of 
their baptism into the name of Christ that he 
grounds his whole argument against divisions. 
Hence it would appear that this Scripture, 
when taken together, not only does not prove 
that baptism may be omitted, but it distinctly 
emphasizes the importance of baptism, and 
establishes be3^ond the possibility of a doubt 
that all the Corinthian Church had been bap- 
tized, no matter by whom it had been done. It 
also emphasizes the importance of baptism be- 
cause of the fact that the apostle seems to re- 
gard the baptism of a person into a name as 
equivalent to that person's taking the name 
into which he is baptized. 

(4) It is probable, however, that none of 
the apostles did very much baptizing them- 
selves, at least this was true of those who were 
prominent as speakers; and it was just as true 

152 



WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES 

of Peter as of Paul. Peter lias been called the 
apostle of tlie Jews, and it is assumed that bap- 
tism was a part of his commission, and that is 
why he told the Pentecostians to be baptized. 
But we are not distinctly told that Peter ever 
baptized anybody himself. He commanded Cor- 
nelius and his household to be baptized, and 
hence w^e have the right to conclude that he 
did not baptize them himself. Now if there is 
anything in this fact, it simply shows that Paul 
did more baptizing than Peter, for we have 
Paul's own testimony that .he himself baptized 
some, while we have not a word about Peter's 
baptizing any. So the old notion of the Gen- 
tiles' being exempted from baptism falls to the 
ground. 

(5) It may still be asked what is meant by 
the passage, "Christ sent me not to baptize, 
but to preach the Gospel." Much depends 
upon the force of the contrast not — but. Take 
an example of this idiom in another place: 
"He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, 
but on him that sent me" (John 12:44). Now 
if this sentence be interpreted as some are wont 
to interpret Paul's language, then it follows 
that the Savior plainly contradicts himself. 
But his meaning is clearly this: he that be- 
lieveth on me, believeth not (only) on me, but 
(also) on him that sent me. Now let us read 

153 



THE FUNDAMRNTATv ERROR OF CHRIvSTENDOM 

Paul's language in the same way: "Christ 
sent me not [only] to baptize, but [also] to 
preach the Gospel." In other words, the argu- 
ment of Paul is as follows: "You Corinthians 
attach very great importance to certain leaders. 
Very well. You were not baptized into my 
name, and I am very glad I did not baptize 
many of you, lest some one should say that I 
baptized in my own name; and I was quite jus- 
tified in not baptizing many of you, for I was 
not sent simply to baptize, but to preach the 
Gospel." 

Doubtless some one who was traveling with 
Paul did most of the baptizing, or else some 
who lived at Corinth did it. In this view of 
the matter we are justified by such commenta- 
tors as Doddridge, Wells, Hackett, Barnes, 
etc., etc. Commenting upon the passage, 
Albert Barnes says: "Baptism was not his 
principal employment, though he had a com- 
mission in common with the others to adminis- 
ter the ordinance, and occasionally did it." 
Doddridge supposes that the administration of 
the ordinance was intrusted to inferiors, be- 
cause it was commonly practiced by immersion, 
and was attended with some trouble and incon- 
venience. Bishop Pearce translates the passage 
thus: "For Christ sent me not so much to bap- 
tize as to preach the Gospel." And Adam 

154 



WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES 

Clark sustains the Bishop's version in the fol- 
lowing language: *'The writers of the Old and 
New Testaments do, almost everywhere (agree- 
able to their Hebrew idiom) express a prefer- 
ence given to one thing beyond another, by an 
affirmation of that which is preferred, and a 
negation of that which is contrary to it, and so 
it must be understood here; for, if St. Paul was 
not sent at all to baptize, he baptized without 
a commission; but if he were sent not only to 
baptize, but to preach also, or to preach rather 
than baptize, he did in fact discharge his duty 
aright." 

(6) Even if it were admitted, or could be 
proved, that Paul did receive a separate and 
distinct commission from the rest of the apos- 
tles, and that his commission did not include 
baptism, and that he never did baptize any 
except those whose names he himself mentions, 
this fact would settle nothing as regards the 
importance of the ordinance of baptism, or that 
it is not binding upon the Gentiles. It is not 
enough to prove that Paul did not baptize, but 
it must be shown that no one else baptized 
atnongst the Gentiles, or that the Gentile Chris- 
tians were really none of them baptized. But 
this can never be done. On the contrary, it is 
easy to show that the Gentile Christians were 
baptized, as well as the Jewish Christians, and 

155 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

it is not at all material whether the baptism 
was administered by Panl, or others whose duty 
was specially to do that part of the work. The 
primitive evangelists usually went out in 
couples, and it was doubtless the habit for one 
of these to mainly do the preaching, while the 
other attended to the baptizing. 

(7) This pavSsage, like many others, must be 
interpreted in the light of all the facts of the 
case. When this is done, there is not the 
slightest difi&culty whatever. Paul simply did 
what he had a right to do, viz.: he refrained 
from baptizing when he had some one else to 
do this work, and in the case of the Corinthians 
he was glad he had exercised h^"s privilege, as 
it left the Church without excuse in keeping up 
their partisan clamor by claiming him as their 
leader. 

This case of the apostle suggests an impor- 
tant fact. As the apostles seem to have gone 
out in twos, it is probable that one of these 
generally did the preaching, while the other 
did the baptizing, though the baptizing might 
have been done by any of the local members of 
the Church, since in the days of the apostles 
clerical orders were not necessary in order to 
perform ministerial functions. Possibly the 
effectiveness of evangelistic work might be in- 
creased if this method of division of labor could 

156 



WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES 

be generally adopted at the present time. Any- 
way, the special point in the passage under 
consideration places emphasis upon the impor- 
tance of the co-operation of different talents in 
the work of evangelizing the world. 



157 



CHAPTER XII. 
THREE IMPORTANT FACTS. 

I, It is a fact that baptism is not a purely 
bodily act^ but it involves the conscience^ and is 
an act ''Hozvard God.^^ It is transitional^ and 
ijtdicates the passing over from one state to that 
of another. 

The following passage, when fairly inter- 
preted, will fully support the proposition under 
consideration: 

"The antitype — baptism — doth also now save you, not a 
putting away of filth of flesh, but the decision of a good 
conscience toward God, through resurrection of Christ." 
(1 Peter 3:21.) 

It is purposed to briefly look at this passage 
from three points of view, viz.: the Critical, 
Kxegetical and Practical. Of course the exam- 
ination must be brief. 

(i) Critical, The first thing to be deter- 
mined is the meaning of Eperooteema^ which is 
rendered in the Authorized Version, "answer," 
and in the Revised Version, "interrogation." 
Now, neither of these versions expresses the 
idea of the original, though the Authorized 
Version comes nearer it than the Revised Ver- 
sion. The interrogation of a good conscience 

158 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

simply makes no sense at all, while the ansiver 
of a good conscience is not a very intelligible 
phrase to most people. In fixing the meaning 
of Eperooteeina^ the difficulty has been aug- 
mented by the fact that it occurs only once in 
the New Testament, and only once in the 
Septuagint. In Daniel 4:17, the Authorized 
Version renders it ''demand," but it is at once 
evident to even the English reader that there 
is something wrong in the translation. The 
passage reads as follows: "This matter is by 
the decree of the watchers, and the demand by 
the word of the Holy Ones." Now Eperooteema 
translates in this passage the Aramaic Sh^elah^ 
to which Gesenius gives the meaning "ques- 
tion," "subject of inquiry," "cause at law," 
"cause decided," hence "judgment" or "de- 
cision" (^Decretitni). Dr. Lange thinks the 
word "command" will do, but we think "de- 
cision" comes more nearly the idea of the 
Aramaic, as the corresponding words Gezerah 
and Maamar unquestionably mean decision. 
This being accepted, the whole passage may be 
rendered literally as follows: "The antitype, 
baptism, doth also now save you, not a putting 
away of filth of flesh, but the decision of a good 
conscience toward God, through resurrection of 
Jesus Christ." 

(2) Exegetical, Taking the whole context 

159 



THE FUNDAMKNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

into view, it is evident that baptism saves; not 
in any such sense as grace saves, or faith saves, 
or hope saves, but in a sense nevertheless im- 
portant. The conscience having been aroused 
by the Gospel, and the heart purified by faith, 
the final decision of the penitent believer is 
made in baptism; it is his honest decision to 
accept Jesus as I^ord and Christ; and this de- 
cision has the force of a solemn covenant as 
soon as the baptism takes place. It is prac- 
tically equivalent to the Roman soldier's sacra- 
mejthim^ by which he took upon himself the 
obligations involved in his enlistment. The 
transitional force of baptism is not only indi- 
cated in the reference to the salvation of Noah 
and his family, but also in the phrase ''toward 
God. ' ' The water of the flood separated Noah 
and his family from the old sin-stricken world, 
and translated them into a new state. Now, 
baptism is the antitype of this water; that is, 
stands instead of it; or is related to us as re- 
gards our salvation as the water of the flood 
was related to Noah's salvation, in so far as the 
idea of transition is concerned. Our baptism is 
"toward God, through the resurrection of 
Christ." It is, therefore, practically renounc- 
ing the world, formally burying the old man, 
and rising to walk a new life through the 
power of Christ's resurrection, thus assuming 

160 



THRBE IMPORTANT FACTS 

the obligations of tlie Christian's state as indi- 
cated in the phrase, "Decision of a good con- 
science toward God." 

(3) Practical. The practical aspects of this 
question are very great. All workers in inquiry 
rooms will bear testimony to the difficulty of 
bringing penitent inquirers to anything like a 
definite decision as to God. But does not this 
difficulty grow out of the substitution of mod- 
ern methods for that which was commanded by 
Christ, and constantly insisted upon by his 
divinely commissioned apostles? Any one who 
will carefully read the Book of Acts cannot fail 
to see that baptism was used very differently 
by the apostles to what it is now. It was then 
the deciding act by which the penitent believer 
took up his allegiance to Christ; it was "toward 
God," and consequently it was practically re- 
nouncing the old state of sin and entering cov- 
enant relations with the New Master. Hence 
it always followed closely after conviction. 
Just as soon as the people cried out, they were 
told what to do, and baptism was included in 
the directions, as it was practically the sacra- 
mejitunt^ or pledge, as well as the decision of 
those who were seeking to be enrolled in the 
army of the faithful. 

And this fact presents a question which our 
modern evangelists might do well to consider. 

11 161 



THB FUNDAMBNTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

Without raising any discussion just now as to 
what is called the mode of baptism, is it not 
true that the primitive place of the ordinance 
has practically been ignored by modern man- 
made methods, which methods serve only to 
confuse and often finally disgust the honest in- 
quirer? He seeks for peace, and is told to be- 
lieve in Christ, but when he is conscious that 
he does most sincerely believe, he still finds that 
he has taken no decisive step by which he as- 
sumes the obligations of the divine life, and it 
frequently happens that he cannot be made to 
realize that he has passed from death unto life. 
The reason for this is, he has not been directed 
according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit. 
Hence, it may be safely affirmed that infant 
sprinkling has robbed baptism of its practical 
import, and has thereby taken away from the 
evangelist one of his most efficient means for 
dealing with the unconverted. Baptism, when 
scripturally administered, is of the greatest 
practical importance. It is not, therefore, an 
arbitrary ordinance, commanded by divine au- 
thority without any special use or significance; 
but it has a far-reaching spiritual meaning, and, 
as such, cannot be dispensed with or perverted 
without great injury to the work of saving 
souls. 

The position of baptism, when considered in 

162 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

the light of our exposition, is inade to occupy 
an importance which cannot be ascribed to it 
by any or all of the commonly accepted views. 
Our view involves the following: 

(i ) Baptism is a covenant, and is equivalent 
to the Roman soldier's oath of enlistment. In 
baptism the penitent believer assumes all the 
obligations of the divine life, and pledges him- 
self to become an obedient follower of our lyord 
Jesus Christ. 

(2) Baptism becomes the act which sepa- 
rates between the old and new man, just as the 
waters of the flood separated between the old 
and new world. It, therefore, marks a change 
of state. Faith and repentance are necessary 
prerequisites, but in baptism the penitent be- 
liever distinctly, definitely and formally passes 
over from the old state of condemnation to that 
of reconciliation or acceptance with God. 

(3) The main significance of our exposition 
will be found in the spiritual aspect of baptism 
which it emphasizes. Baptism is not a mere 
bodily act; it reachqs back to the conscience, 
and looks forward "toward God." From the 
human side it proceeds from the conscience; 
from the divine side it lays hold of the resur- 
rection of Christ. It is, therefore, when prop- 
erly understood, an intensely spiritual act. 
This view relieves the ordinance entirely from 

163 



THE FUNDAMENTAL, ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

the gross conceptions which have been placed 
upon it by those who make too much of it as 
well as by those who make too little of it. 

BECOMING CHILDREN OF GOD. 

The transitional character of baptism is 
shown also in those Scriptures which mark the 
passage of the sinner into sonship, citizenship, 
etc. It is to be regretted that in seeking to 
escape the doctrine of baptismal regeneration a 
doubtful doctrine of Fatherhood and Sonship has 
been invented; and this furnishes another in- 
stance of how the rebound from "sacramental 
grace" has, in the language of Robertson, 
made baptism appear as nothing. In view of 
the evil effect of this tendency, it may be well 
to look at the matter somewhat carefully. 

It is one of the strange features of modern 
biblical criticism that the doctrine of the uni- 
versal Fatherhood of God is seriously accepted 
by not a few who claim to have rediscovered a 
great truth which has been for ages covered up 
in the smoke of Babylon. To be convinced 
that we are not overestimating the case and that 
the doctrine referred to is regarded as funda- 
mental in any theology worthy of the twentieth 
century, one has only to read such works as Dr. 
Fairbairn's in many respects admirable book, 
entitled, "The Place of Christ in Modern The- 

164 



THREE IIMPORTANT FACTS 

ology," and Dr. Watson's "The Mind of the 
Master." 

Now all depends upon what is meant by 
Fatherhood. If what is meant is simply the 
fact that God, in a metaphorical sense-, may be 
regarded as the Father of all men, then certain- 
ly this is no new discovery, for throughout all 
ages of the Churcli such a relationship has been 
recoQ^nized. In this sense God is called a 
^'Shepherd./' but no one would certainly reacli 
the conclusion from this fact that men are 
sheep in any literal understanding of the term. 
No doubt because men are God's creation, and 
because he has a providential care over them, 
it is proper enough, to regard him as potentially 
their Father. But this is not what is meant by 
Dr. Fairbairn, Dr. Watson and others, who 
claim that they have made a new discovery. 
They mean that we are God's children by vir- 
tue of an actual relationship which we sustain 
to God as a child sustains to its natural. father. 
In other words, these able critics, to use Dr. 
Fairbairn' s own language, contend that God is 
Father of all men, not. in a merely figurative, but 
in as real a sense as any that can be imagined. 
He says, "Fatherhood did not come through 
Creation, but rather creation because of Father- 
hood." Dr. Watson does not accept the notion 
that God's Fatherhood expresses a physical re- 

165 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

lationsliip, but only a relationship which is 
ethical. Now this is making matters worse. 
Undoubtedly all men do not occupy the right 
ethical relationship towards God, but if sonship 
depends upon this, then it is simply certain 
that the Fatherhood of God can not be univer- 
sal in the ethical sense. Yet this is the only 
sense in which it would be proper to say that 
anyone is a child of God. 

When we come to study carefully the Scrip- 
tures it is not difficult to determine that they, 
at least, do not teach an ethical universal son- 
ship. Indeed, there are passages which clearly 
slap this notion squarely in the face. We might 
quote many of these, but one will suffice our 
present purpose. Certain of the Jews, disputing, 
said to him, *'We were not born of fornication; 
we have one Father, even God." The reply 
of Jesus is very significant. He said, "If God 
were your Father you would love me"; and he 
afterwards adds, "Ye are of your Father the 
Devil." Now here are persons whom Jesus 
practically declares are not God's children, and 
as if to make his statement doubly strong he 
clinches it by affirming that their Father is the 
Devil. It would be difficult, we think, to find 
a passage more explicit than this on any ques- 
tion of importance. Undoubtedly the whole 
relationship discussed in these statements of 

166 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

Christ is purely ethical, and that is precisely 
the way in which the Fatherhood of God is al- 
ways regarded when it is discussed fn refer- 
ence to his children. 

Certainly no one can claim to be a child of 
God in precisely the same sense that Jesus was. 
This being conceded, then there are only two 
other ways in which God can be regarded as 
Father. One is in the metaphorical sense to 
which reference has already been made, and 
the other the ethical sense, which we believe is 
exactly the point of view from which our divine 
lyord views the matter whenever he refers to it 
at all. 

But we are curious to know how this last 
view may be regarded as anything new. It 
has certainly been the doctrine of Christian 
teachers throughout all ages of the Church; and 
all the talk about the Fatherhood of God being 
a contribution of the latter part of the nine- 
teenth century to theology has really no foun- 
dation in fact. There are philosophical reasons 
against the notion that God must be regarded 
as the Father of the race in the sense of the re- 
lation between father and child, but we can do 
little more than hint at these reasons now. A 
single thought will be sufficiently suggestive to 
the reader. If the notion should be maintained 
then evidently every -man would have to regard 

167 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

himself as having two fathers in practically the 
same sense. But this is not the way God talks 
to his creatures. However, it is very beautiful* 
ly true that God uses the relation between 
father and child to illustrate and enforce the 
ethical relation which he sustains to all those 
who are his children. Hence we are told 
that "like as a father pitieth his children, so 
the lyord pitieth them that fear him.'^ 

We are now prepared to examine one or two 
of those passages which bear upon the subject 
under consideration. In order to be as brief as 
possible the examination will be confined main- 
ly to the question of sonship, though an argu- 
ment equally conclusive can be made with 
respect to citizenship and other relations. 

A crucial passage is John i. ii, 12: "He 
came unto His own country, and His own peo- 
ple did not receive Him home. As many, how- 
ever, as did receive Him, to them gave He the 
right to become children of God, even to those 
that were believing on His name.'^ 

The point to be considered is the meaning of 
the word "become." The Greek is genesthai^ 2, 
Aor. Inf. , and is ixowLginomai. The correspond- 
ing lyatin is Fieri ^ the German 1 Verde n and the 
French cTetre fails. Now there are few words 
of more general w$>^\.\\2i\\ginomai. It has several 
meanings, but all of these • in some way relate 

168 



THRER IMPORTANT FACTS 

to tlie primary meaning, which is, to come into 
existence, be created, exist by creation; but it 
never, so far as I can find, has a signification 
that will justify the notion that it represents 
entering into the conscious enjoyment of some- 
thing that was already ours. Nevertheless this 
latter view is very generally entertained by 
those who believe that all men are now the 
children of God, whether they are Christians or 
not. 

Undoubtedl}^ the text under consideration is 
crucial with respect to the question of divine 
Sonship; and this question may be stated briefly 
as follows: Are men sons of God without 
adoption, or have they forfeited their divine 
relationship by reason of sin, and must they 
now be born again before they can become 
children of God? The text before us seems to 
imply that faith gives the right to become chil- 
dren of God, but even it in itself does not con- 
stitute them children. Surely we do not 
become that which we are already; or to put it 
in other words, we do not enter into a state if 
we are in it. The notion, then, that we are 
children of God before regeneration and adop- 
tion seems to be not only contrary to Scripture 
but also contrary to human reason. But we 
ard told that w^e are children of God by 
creation, and though like the prodigal we have 

lo9 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

wandered from our Father's house, we are still 
his children and he is still our Father. Now, as a 
matter of fact it would be difficult to prove that 
the relation of Father and child between God 
and man was ever recognized under the old dis- 
pensations. It is true that Paul at Athens 
speaks of man as the "offspring" of God, but 
in this he uses the language of poetry, and 
it really proves nothing more than that man is 
the creation of God. This is admitted without 
question; but if this fact proves that men are 
children of God, by a parity of reasoning it 
would be easy to show that animals are his 
children, since he created them also. Of course 
this reasoning does not imply that there is no 
difference between animals and men. The 
point is simply as to relationship. 

That man is the creature of God no one will 
dispute, but that he ever was his child, in the 
true meaning of the word, may well be ques- 
tioned. At the same time I do not care to dis- 
pute the contention of those who hold to his 
original sonship. What I claim is that in his 
present lost condition he is without God and 
without hope in the world, an alien and a 
stranger, outside of the covenant and wholly 
unworthy to be called a child. In short he 
must become a child through the grace of God 
before it is possible for him to claim divine 

170 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

sonsliip. All this seems to be clearly set forth 
ill the text under consideration. Hence those 
who contend for the divine Fatherhood of the 
race do not properly distinguish between what 
is understood by natural birth, or birth into the 
kingdom of nature, and spiritual birth, or birth 
into the kingdom of grace. In one we are 
God's offspring, but have lost our inherit- 
ance, lost our birthright; and consequently a 
new birth is necessary, and in this we are 
constituted children of God by adoption. Hav- 
ing forfeited our birthright we are no longer 
children until we become such by the means 
which God has provided in the gospel scheme. 
In order to arrive at the whole truth in this 
matter we must not confine ourselves simply to 
the family idea. That is only one phase of the 
question. The fact of our new state is set forth 
under various figures. The lost world is rep- 
resented in the Scriptures as under the domin- 
ion of Satan, as belonging to his kingdom, and 
Christians are regarded as having been trans- 
lated from this kingdom into the kingdom of 
God's dear Son. In every instance where the 
change is referred to the idea of transition is 
always prominent. It is from one kingdom to 
another, from darkness to light, from the power 
of Satan to God, from death to life, from a state 
of alienation to a state of reconciliation, 

171 



the; fundamental error op CHRISTENDOM 

from the old man to the new man, from con- 
demnation to justification, etc., etc. Hence the 
relationship of father and child is only one way 
of expressing what follows in the new creation 
in Christ Jesus. But this relationship is depend- 
ent upon faith which gives the right to become 
children. The whole change is fully set forth 
in Gal. iii. 26-29. In this Scripture it is clear- 
ly implied that we become children of God 
by faith in Christ Jesus, and that this faith is 
manifested by actually putting on Christ in bap- 
tism. The idea of transition is evidently clearly 
shown in this passage, and this is precisely 
what is shown in the text which we have bad 
under consideration. In this text faith gives the 
right to take the important step which will con- 
stitute the believer a child of God. He does 
not become a child by the simple exercise of 
faith, but this faith gives him the right or priv- 
ilege to enter into definite, covenant relation- 
ship by an act of obedience, which is the trans- 
ition act between alienation and reconciliation. 
Hence if any man be in Christ he is a new cre- 
ation, and as many as have been baptized into 
Christ have put away the old and have entered 
upon the new. In this way is that relationship 
of Fatherhood and Sonship established which is 
recognized in the Scriptures; and in this case 
baptism distinctly marks the transition which 

172 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

takes place. Nor does this interpretation have 
the slightest leaning towards baptismal regen- 
eration. Nevertheless it makes baptism an im- 
portant factor in the plan of salvation, and thus 
saves it from the degraded position to which it 
has been reduced by those who make too little 
of it. As faith must precede the baptism, in 
becoming children of God, of course baptismal 
regeneration is at once cut off; and as baptism 
is seen to perform an important function, it is 
equally true that all talk about baptism being 
a non-essential is entirely without justification. 
Such at least is the conclusion to which I am 
forced after a candid consideration of what 
seems to be the general trend of the Scriptures. 
I am not unmindful of what will be said by 
some in reply to the points I have made. No 
doubt, among other things, I will be told that 
Christ taught his disciples to pray, "Our Father, 
who art in heaven." But this was said to his 
disciples^ and it is by no means certain that any 
one else has a right to appropriate what the 
language implies. Still, there may be a sense 
in which it is proper to recognize all men 
as God's erring children, but this view certain- 
ly is not very clearly set forth in the Scriptures. 
Nevertheless, even if such a view can be fairly 
established, it is still true that only those who 
believe and obey the Gospel are reconciled, 

173 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

adopted, saved; and consequently there is cer- 
tainly no need to maintain a position wliicli, to 
say the least, is of doubtful interpretation, and 
is certainly misleading to many as respects its 
special bearing upon the salvation of the race. 
The case of the prodigal son can not be legiti- 
mately used to establish the contention implied 
in the universal Fatherhood of God, as it is usu- 
ally set forth by those who teach that notion. 

2. It is a fact that baptism is in the name of 
Jesus Christy and this connects it with the only 
source of salvation. 

lyCt us study carefully the following passage: 
*'And Peter said to them: Repent and be 
baptized, each one of you, upon the name of 
Jesus Christ, in order to the remission of your 
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit" (Acts 2: 38). 

There are at least two extreme views with 
respect to this passage, and these both have a 
bad influence on the practical results of evan- 
gelistic labor. One view makes too much of 
baptism, teaching in effect the doctrine of 
"Baptismal Regeneration," while the other 
makes too little of baptism, and consequently 
this fine saying of Peter is very seldom if 
ever used in the ministry of those who 
hold this view. Indeed, it is believed that not 
many preachers of the evangelical sort ever 

174 



THREK IMPORTANT FACTS 

quote this passage in these beginning days of the 
twentieth century. 

Now, why is this? Has the passage ceased 
to possess any binding force as an authoritative 
declaration of the Holy Spirit? Is it no longer 
to be consulted when seeking to know the Di- 
vine way of dealing with earnest inquirers? I 
ask these questions because I have a notion that 
the passage has special importance in determin- 
inof the wav of salvation. Not that it settles 
ever3'thing. Not that it even settles anything 
without the concurrent evidence of other Scrip- 
ture. But if the most obvious interpretation of 
this text not only does not contradict other 
parts of the Word of God, but is really sup- 
ported by the whole tenor of Divine teaching, 
then we should certainly be slow to neglect it 
in our preaching, and especially in instructing 
earnest inquirers. It seems to me its import- 
ance is emphasized in the light of the facts in 
which it stands. It is the first deliverance of 
the Holy Spirit's teaching after the fulfilment 
of the promise which our lyord made to his dis- 
ciples. The disciples were commanded to 
^ 'tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with 
power from on high." At Pentecost they re- 
ceived that powder, and Peter, the very person 
who had been specially chosen to open the new 
kingdom, is the speaker. He preaches a most 

175 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CIIRIvSTENDOM 

remarkable sermon, concluding with a splendid 
climax: "Therefore, let all the house of Israel 
know assuredly that God hath made that same 
Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ." Never was there a finer summary of 
the gospel facts than this. Jesus, the historical 
name, is here; Christ crucified is here; Christ 
the anointed One is here; and the Lord, the 
One having all authority in heaven and earth, is 
here. What more was needed so far as faith 
was concerned? The people had clearly set 
before them the Lord Jesus Christ, embracing 
everything that was necessary to be addressed 
to their faith. No wonder they cried out: 
"Men and brethren, what must we do?" Pe- 
ter's answer was: "Repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, upon the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2: 38). 

Now, it may be well to notice the order in 
which the Apostle places the various items in 
this text. The inquirers were told to "repent 
and be baptized." They were deeply moved 
by Peter's sermon — so much so that they were 
pricked to the heart, and cried out. Surely here 
was real conviction. Consequently the Apostle 
does not tell them they must believe — they, 
doubtless, already had sufficient faith to obey 
Peter's command; and so he just told them what 

176 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

to do, and tlieii exhorted them to do it. And 
the promise was that, following their obedience, 
they were to receive remission of sins and the 
gift of the Holy Spirit. Now, can there be any 
reasonable doubt that this is the order in which 
the items stand related? Of course, much de- 
pends upon the force of the preposition eis 
which in the Authorized Version is translated 
"for." And we think it will help us to deter- 
mine the exact meaning of eis here, if we con- 
sider the whole phrase, eis aphesin hamartioon^ 
"for the remission of sins." The phrase only 
occurs in three other places, viz., Matt. 26: 28; 
Mark 1:4; lyuke 3:3. Hence four occurrences 
exhaust the New Testament use of eis aphesin 
hamartioon^ rendered in the Authorized Version 
uniformly "for the remission of sins," and in 
the Revised Version "unto the remission of 
sins." Now if we can certainly determine the 
force of eis in the phrase as found in Matthew, 
Mark and Luke, we think there is no doubt 
that it should have the same force in Acts 2: 
38. In Matt. 26: 28, it cannot have a retro- 
spective significance, since it is impossible to 
suppose that Jesus shed his blood because the 
sins of the world were pardoned. And it is just 
as evident that John did not preach the baptism 
of repentance because the sins of the people 
were pardoned, but in order to remission (Mark 

12 177 



the; FUNDAMIi:NTAIv KRROR OF CHRIvSTFNDOM 

i: 4; lyuke 3: 3). Now as the force of ezs is 
unmistakably prospective in all the other oc- 
currences of the phrase, it must have the same 
force in the passage under consideration, unless 
there are good and valid reasons why the uni- 
formity of meaning should be broken. No such 
reasons, I feel sure, can be given. On the con- 
trary, there is strong corroborative evidence 
that the Pentecostians did not have their sins 
pardoned when Peter told them to "repent and 
be baptized." It is altogether improbable that 
he would have told them to repent because their 
sins were pardoned. Nor is it possible to sup- 
pose that their inquiry is the language of sins 
forgiven. They had been charged, only a few 
moments before, with crucifying the innocent 
Jesus. Surely they were not such characters as 
could expect the remission of sins without sin- 
cere repentance. But baptism is placed be- 
tween the repentance and the remission of sins 
which was promised, and consequently, it can- 
not be said that they were to be baptized be- 
cause of remission of sins any more than it can 
be said they were to repent because their sins 
were remitted. Hence we conclude that every 
rule of fair exegesis compels us to recognize the 
fact that Peter told these Pentecostians to re- 
pent and be baptized upon the name of Jesus 
Christ in order to the remission of sins. 

178 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

But, it may be asked, how can this interpre- 
tation be made to harmonize with many pas- 
sages which do not mention repentance and 
baptism as in any way connected with re- 
mission of sins? lyCt lis just here state a canon 
of criticism which is most important in this dis- 
cussion. When the Scriptures pi^07nise a bless- 
ings that blessing may depend upon niore^ but 
ca7i never depend upon less^ than the conditions 
expressed in any given case. For instance, 
when salvation is promised to any one who calls 
upon the name of the lyord (Rom. lo: 13), it is 
evident that nothing short of this calling will 
meet the case; but no one would seriously con- 
tend that calling upon the name of the lyord 
entirely exhausts all that is required in order to 
salvation. Precisely so is it as regards faith. 
Whenever the Scriptures state this as the con- 
dition of salvation, and mention nothing else, 
it should be remembered that salvation cannot 
be predicated without this faith, but it does not 
follow that no other conditions are understood, 
because they are not specifically stated in the 
particular case referred to. Surely the com- 
mand to believe does not exclude repentance, 
calling on the name of the Lord, confession of 
Christ, etc. And if it does not exclude these, 
why is it essential to suppose that it neces- 
sarily excludes ba^^tism? I demur to that 

179 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

method of reasoning which leaves the word of 
God in hopeless confusion. 

But we are told that remission of sins is 
promised to faith as the only condition, and 
Acts lo: 43 is quoted in proof. Now it is not 
stated here that this faith is the only condition. 
Undoubtedly remission cannot depend on less 
than this, but it may depend on more. It is 
not even said that whosoever believeth in him 
shall have remission of sins, without adding 
''THROUGH HIS NAME." This important 
phrase is often overlooked, as if it were not in 
the text. The believer receives remission of 
sins THROUGH HIS NAME. Let us put this 
statement by the side of Acts 2: 38: "Repent 
and be baptized every one of you upon the 
NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins," etc., and we readily see how the believ- 
ing penitent receives remission of sins through 
his NxlME. Evidently baptism brings him to 
that NAME whereby we are said to be saved. 
(Acts 4: 12.) It is furthermore evident that 
there is no antagonism between these two pas- 
sages. Acts 2: 38 is in perfect harmony with 
Acts 10: 43. One is really the explanation of 
the other, because a fuller statement of practi- 
cally the same thing. Hence we should not allow 
some foolishly extreme sacramental notions of 

baptism to crowd this divine ordinance out of 

iso 



THRBK IMPORTANT FACTS 

its proper place. What is generally understood 
by Ba^^tismal Regeneration is a dangerous her- 
esy, and should be earnestly repudiated by all 
Christians, but repentance and baptism upon 
the name of Jesus Christ are in order to the 
remission of sins. At least that is what the 
Apostle Peter taught at Pentecost, and we have 
already seen that he taught practically the same 
thing at the house of Cornelius. Not only did 
he tell these Gentiles that ''''through his Niamey 
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remis- 
sion of sins," but he concludes by "command- 
ing them to be baptized in the name of the 
Lord. ' ' Surely nothing could be clearer than 
the teaching of Peter on this subject. Is his 
teaching authoritative now? If not, why not? 
But if it is, what becomes of many modern 
methods .of evangelizing? 

There remains but one other point to be no- 
ticed, and that is necessary to meet the first 
extreme to which attention has been called. 
What is the force of epi too anoinati lasoii Chris- 
toit? This I have translated: "Upon the name 
of Jesus Christ." Now what does this mean? 
Does it not signify clearly that whatever efficacy 
there may be in baptism is derived wholly from 
the name of Jesus Christ? The baptism which 
Peter demanded was grounded upon the all-pre- 
vailing NAME — the only name by which any- 

181 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

one can be saved. Hence all who were bap- 
tized at Pentecost would understand that their 
whole reliance for remission of sins rested upon 
the name of Jesus Christ. They did not trust 
in the water, nor even in the act of baptism; 
but they were baptized, relying upon the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and the 
value of baptism was chiefly owing to the fact 
that it placed these penitent believers in con- 
tact wdth the name in which all redeeming 
power is concentrated. Upon this name they 
based their trust, as it alone possessed the po- 
tent charm to put away sins. 

This view of the matter does not in the 
slightest degree change the chronological order. 
It still leaves baptism a condition precedent to 
remission of sins; but it does change the empha- 
sis from the baptism to the name from which 
baptism receives all its real significance. This, I 
think, is a gain to the cause of truth; and if I 
am justified in this conclusion, it seems to me a 
legitimate accentuation of the right word or 
phrase is the only thing that is necessary 
to redeem this passage from the extremes to 
which it has been subjected, and restore it to 
its rightful authority in directing inquiring 
souls in the way of salvation. 

J . // is a fact that baptisjn is the key stone which 

182 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

locks together some of tJie most important things 
connected with salvation. 

Baptism is joined to the death of Christ — 
(Rom. 6: 3); it is joined to the burial of 
Christ — (Rom. 6:4); it is also joined to the 
resurrection of Christ — (Col. 2: 12). These 
are what are usually called the facts of the gos- 
pel, and when stated in the language of the in- 
spired record, they furnish the foundation of 
everything in Christianity. Baptism is joined 
to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 
(Matt. 28: 19). It is also joined to Faith, 
Repentance and Confession (Mark 16: 16, 
Acts 2: 38; Acts 8: 37). Finally it is joined 
to remission of sins, gifts of the Holy Spirit 
and adoption into the family of God (Acts 2: 
38; Gal. 3: 26, 27). 

Thus it will be seen that baptism has nnder 
it the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; 
over it the name of the Father, Son and Holy 
Spirit; before it faith, repentance and confes- 
sion; following it remission of sins, gift of the 
Holy Spirit and children of God. In short, 
baptism is the key stone which binds all these 
together. We have here twelve most important 
things all joined to one another by a scriptural 
baptism which forms a common center around 
which all these different parts of the gospel — 
the facts, conditions, sanctions and promises — 

183 



THK FUNDAMKNTAIv KRROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

are grouped, and without which the symmetry of 
the whole would be broken, and consequently 
the scheme of redemption left in utter 
confusion. This being true, it is surely wis- 
dom to say, "what God has joined together, 
that let no one put asunder." 

Perhaps the chief mistake which has been 
made, as regards the meaning of baptism, is 
that it stands for only one things whereas it is 
rather the connecting link for viany things. It 
is the place where all the elements of the gospel 
meet, where they all coalesce, and thereby be- 
come harmoniously co-operative in the plan of 
salvation. Hence, while baptism doubtless has 
a significance all its own, it seems to me its 
chief office is to bring all the different parts of 
the gospel into practical union in one great 
overt act of obedience. 

We may now easily account for the variety 
of views with respect to the design of baptism. 
As already intimated, it is the place ivhere the 
facts, commands, sanctions and blessings of the 
gospel normally meet — where the divine and 
human sides of salvation are brought together 
in orderly co-operation. But as baptism is 
joined to so many things, and as the human mind 
is prone to seize upon one thing only at a time, 
and that always the one thing most agreeable 
to preconceived opinions, it follows that it is 

184 



THREE I:MP0RTAXT FACTS 

not difficult to iiiiderstaiid how there exists so 
much confusion upon a subject which is as clear 
as sunlight when we once occupy the proper 
standpoint wnth respect to it. 

It is a well known fact that if a ray of light 
is passed through a prism and thrown on 
a screen, the ray will be divided into seven dif- 
ferent colors. It is also known that if these 
colors are painted on a wheel in their proper 
proportions, and then the wheel is turned 
rapidly, the colors will all blend and make 
what we call white light. Just so with bap- 
tism. It may be regarded as the wheel by the 
action of which all the elements of the gospel 
are blended into the clear light of salvation. 
Without the action of this wheel these elements 
remain in separate parts, and while in this state 
of separation they are often treated by theo- 
logians as if they actually contradict one an- 
other. But this is mainly for the reason that 
these elements are considered separately, as if 
each one was, in itself, the whole of the plan of 
salvation. But we must remember that, as in 
the case of light, all the colors are necessary 
and each color must be in its legitimate place 
and in its right proportion, in order to produce 
perfect light, so must all the elements of 
the gospel be included in their normal places 
and proportions in order to give us the perfect 

1S5 



THE FUND AMENTA Iv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

plan of salvation. An undue emphasis upon 
any part, or the leaving out of a part, would at 
once destroy the harmony of the whole, and in 
some cases might endanger the efHcacy of the 
plan. 

SAI^VATION ASCRIBED TO SEVERAI, THINGS. 

As has already been stated, there are a num- 
ber of instrumentalities employed in the salva- 
tion of the sinner, and the Bible clearly recog- 
nizes these instrumentalities. We are not said 
to be saved by any one thing alone, but by a 
number of things in co-operation. The Scrip- 
tures clearly teach that God saves us, and that 
we are begotten of God; also, that the grace of 
God saves us, etc. But would it be legitimate 
to conclude from these statements of Scripture 
that nothing else has to do with our salvation? 
Surely we would not wish to exclude the work 
of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit 
because the Scriptures ascribe salvation, first of 
all, to the love of the Divine Father. How, 
then, are we to understand the matter? I 
think there is no difficulty in the case whatever. 
Kvidently, when the Scriptures ascribe salva- 
tion to any particular person or thing, they do 
not necessarily exclude other persons or things 
which may be mentioned in the same connec- 
tion or in other parts of the Word of God. 

186 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

The scriptural method is very natural and 
very simple. It depends upon the point of 
view from which the Divine writer is contem- 
plating the subject as to the agency or instru- 
mentality he may name. If he is aiming to 
emphasize the originating or moving cause of 
our salvation, he will unquestionably call at- 
tention to the love of God and the grace of God. 
But if he wishes to direct special attention 
to the procuring cause of our salvation, he will 
dwell upon the great sacrifice for sin and 
uncleanness which Christ made upon the Cross, 
and he will rightfully call attention to the fact 
that it is through His blood we have redemp- 
tion, even the forgiveness of sins. But if the 
point of view occupied by the Divine writer is 
the work of the Holy Spirit, then we are 
told that no one can say that Jesus is I^ord but 
by the Holy Spirit. Now there is no contra- 
diction in this method. Kverything depends 
upon the standpoint from which the subject 
is considered. But we may make contradiction 
by refusing to move the standpoint, and thus 
attempt to confine salvation to one thing when, 
in fact, the Divine Spirit has ascribed it to 
many. 

Turning now to the human side, we find 
the Scriptures still adopt the same method as 
when considering the Divine side. Men are 

187 



THK FUNDAMKNTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

told to do certain things, and as tliey do each 
one of these they are said to be saved. And 
certainly, each one of these, considered from the 
human side, does save, but not all in the same 
sense, nor in the sense in which we are saved 
by Divine power or agency. But these human 
acts save us, nevertheless, in some sense, or 
else the Bible would not say so. As an illus- 
tration, let us look for a moment at faith. 
Now the Scriptures clearly say that faith saves 
us. But in one sense faith does not save us at 
all, for in tJiat sense Christ alone can save 
us. But is there really any such thing as 
scriptural faith without Christ? There must 
be the object of faith before faith can be exer- 
cised at all, and as Christ is the object of 
our faith, we cannot believe scripturally with- 
out resting our faith on Him. So, then, really 
there is no such thing as considering faith apart 
from Christ. Just so of calling on the name of 
the Lord. How can we call on Him in whom 
we haVe not believed, and how can we believe 
in Him of whom we have not heard? Never- 
theless it is plainly stated that "Whosoever 
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall 
be saved." But if we are saved by iaithalone^ 
then surely calling on the name of the Lord can 
have nothing to do with our salvation. But 
we have already seen that faith alone is really 

188 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

no faith at all, or, as James says, a dead faith. 
The same is true of calling upon the name 
of the Lord. We are not saved by simply 
calling, but by calling on the name of the Lord, 
The Scriptures clearly state that Baptism saves 
us. (i Peter iii. 21.) But in what sense does 
Baptism save us? Certainly not in the same 
sense in which we are to understand that God 
saves us, or Christ saves us, or the Holy Spirit 
saves us, or faith saves us, or calling on 
the name of the Lord saves us; but nevertheless 
Baptism does save us in some sense, for the 
Word of God plainly says so. In what sense, 
then, does it save us? Evidently only as it 
in some way relates to Christ, for Baptism, like 
faith, is nothing when taken away from its 
legitimate association. But Baptism, like faith 
and calling, is joined to CJirist^ and derives all 
its significance from Him. Without Him it is 
nothing, with Him it has its proper place. It 
is believed that place is the one which has 
already been assigned to it. It can amount 
to nothing whatever if it is coiisidered simply 
as a human act without any Divine association. 
It must be "towards God by the resurrection of 
Christ.'' It must be associated with the other 
things that are comprehended in the plan of 
salvation. Scriptural Baptism, therefore, can- 
not be a mere physical or mechanical act, but 

189 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

it lias a deeply impressive spiritual significance, 
which at once attaches to it very great impor- 
tance. The phrases ''baptized into Christ,'^ 
"baptized into His death," clearly indicate the 
significance which we are now claiming for 
Baptism. Baptism is not efficacious of itself in 
our salvation, nor is faith, nor repentance, nor 
calling on the name of the Lord, but all 
of these are things which we must do in order 
that v/e may lay hold of the salvation which 
has been provided for us through Jesus Christ 
our lyord. 

THE SCRIPTURES HARMONIZED. 

It will be seen that this method of reasoning 
brings all the Scriptures into harmony. There 
is no longer even an apparent contradiction 
between those passages, on the one hand, 
which assert the sovereignty of God, and those, 
on the other, which assert the free agency of 
man. If we will carefully consider the point of 
view from which the subject is contemplated, 
we shall have no difficulty whatever in under- 
standing that when we are said to be saved 
by faith, calling on the name of the Lord, Bap- 
tism, hope, or indeed any other instrumental- 
ity, considered from the human side, the one 
thing which is specially emphasized must not 
be regarded as excluding any of the others vien- 

190 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

tioncd^ but as only stating one of the things by 
which we are saved, because this one thing has 
some special function which is not provided for 
in any of the others, or even in all of them 
together. But when the one thing is added to 
all the rest of the human acts, even then the 
sum must be regarded as simply part of a circle 
which can only be completed by a union with 
everything which belongs to the Divine side in 
the plan of salvation. 

Just here it is important to distinguish be- 
tween the plan and our obedience to it. The 
former is the work of divine wisdom, and is 
therefore perfect; the latter is necessarily char- 
acterized by all the weakness of the human, 
and is therefore imperfect. Nevertheless, it is 
exactly at this point where much confusion 
prevails. Because baptism is included in the 
whole plan of salvation, it is assumed that 
no one can be saved who is not baptized. 
But this is certainly a non seqititur. It is one 
thing to contend for the perfect plan of salva- 
tion, and it is quite another thing to expect a 
perfect obedience to everything the plan re- 
quires. Doubtless this perfect obedience is the 
high ideal to which we should all aspire, but it 
does not follow that the plan itself should 
be marred simply because human weakness 
cannot always realize the ideal set before us. 

191 



THE FUNDAMENTAIv ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

When it is affirmed therefore that baptism is a 
part of the plan of salvation, it is not necessar- 
ily affirmed that no one can be saved without 
it. Salvation may never depend upon a per- 
fect obedience to everything that is involved in 
the plan. Indeed, some may be saved who 
never heard of the plan at all. But this in 
no wise invalidates the importance of whatever 
may be omitted in the obedience. Life does 
not depend upon a perfect body. One may 
live without an arm or a leg, but this maimed 
condition of the body is certainly not desirable. 
One may live spiritually without meeting fully 
all the conditions of the gospel, but surely it is 
no advantage to spiritual life to leave some- 
thing out which divine wisdom has put into the 
plan. This view of the matter completely 
answers both those who make too much of bap- 
tism and also those who make too little oi\\.. 
From this point of view Baptismal Regenera- 
tion and indifference to baptism are alike un- 
reasonable and unscriptural; and we find that in 
this, as well as in other things, the old 
Latin proverb — in medio tittissimiis ibis — is the 
true philosophy of religion as well as all other 
things. Our safety lies between extremes. 

After all, it is not desirable to rest too much 
in definition. Life is too practical for finely 
spun theories. Action is the law of life, not 

192 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

mere statements of what and how to do. Still, 
it is true that definition is necessary in order to 
secure a working hypothesis. Men will not 
labor or sacrifice without some definite object 
in view. Indefiniteness does not inspire en- 
thusiasm, and without enthusiasm little or 
no progress can be made in any cause. But 
definition has its limitations, and these come 
very soon when we enter the realm of religion. 

The mistake that men make is in supposing 
that the acceptance of certain doctrinal state- 
ments constitutes a Christian; whereas true 
Christianity involves the whole man, body, 
soul and spirit; or the intellect, the affections, 
and even the appetites and passions. The 
latter, however, are to be held in subjection 
to the sanctified higher spiritual nature. Or- 
thodoxy or right thinking is, no doubt, impor- 
tant; for right thinking is a promising fore- 
runner of right action. But right thinking 
may exist without the corresponding action. 

Nevertheless, religion is more of feeling than 
of anything else. It is a heart service rather 
than a head conviction. Both of these ought 
to go together, and they will go together in 
a normally adjusted religious development. 
Still, the latter may exist without the former, 
and doubtless often does exist without it; and 
this is probably one reason why so much cold 

13 193 



THP: FUNDAMENTAIv error of CHRISTENDOM 

formalism exists even where orthodoxy is su- 
preme. A heart full of the love of God is very 
much better than a head full of theological 
subtleties. Still, we do not undervalue theolog- 
ical definitions, when these are kept within 
their proper place. 

As already intimated, they have their limi- 
tations, and beyond these they must not be 
allowed to go. The human mind will think, 
and it will ask questions. The everlasting 
WHY is thundering into all ears. This tendency 
should be encouraged, rather than discouraged. 
It is the parent of all discovery, and therefore 
the fruitful source of many blessings. But 
blessings soon become curses when they are 
perverted from their legitimate use. Hence, 
while even speculations may be encouraged, 
they must not be allowed to take rank as stand- 
ards of faith. It is when our definitions are 
elevated into Procrustean bedsteads, or tests of 
fellowship, or hindrances in Christian work, 
that they become dangerous. As long as each 
man formulates his own religious creed, no one 
ought to object, but the moment he attempts to 
formulate a creed for others, that moment does 
he step over the proper limitations of defini- 
tion. 

Hence we are more and more coming to the 
conclusion that Christian union is not possible, 

194 



THREE IMPORTANT FACTS 

or even desirable, on any other basis than that 
of liberty to differ without the right to divide. 
There is room in the true Church for all legiti- 
mate variety, and this should be allowed fair 
play; but there is no room for the divisions 
which now disfigure the map of Christendom. 
Hence, when our definitions assume the impor- 
tance of human creeds, and these creeds deter- 
mine the lines of fellowship and co-operation, 
then no one should wonder that schism and 
every concomitant evil will be the result. Def- 
initions are well enough as a scaffolding with 
which to help in the building of Christian char- 
acter, but they are useless lumber when the 
house is once built. ''Now abideth faith, hope, 
love; these three, and the greatest of these is 
love." 

This point of view is the most favorable 
from which to consider the question of bap- 
tism. The main thing is to do what our Lord 
has commanded. We may not always clearly 
perceive the philosophy of the command; nor 
is this absolutely essential to secure the bless- 
ing promised; nevertheless if ignorance is not 
bliss, it is surely not folly to be wise. Conse- 
quently^ the more we know of the Divine will 
the greater ought to be our happiness, pro- 
vided we earnestly endeavor to do that will on 
earth as it is done in heaven. Loyalty to our 

195 



THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF CHRISTENDOM 

Sovereign King is the final test in everything 
that pertains to the Divine life, and this loy- 
alty involves the whole heart whether the head 
clearly understands the philosophy or not of 
our King's commands. 



196 



OCT g? 190? 



L BRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 539 777 2 



